CMx1 vs PCK

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

CMSF changed the way wargamers buy games for awhile I think.

In what way?

Alot of gamers pre-bought CMSF. The old AH marketing strategy. Buy it because WE MADE IT kind of a thing....support the company....God and Country kind of a thing.

Some have asked for, and if I understand it correctly, gotten their money back. After 7 patches and a year later the game is where it should have been to begin with. Alot of gamers are waiting now for someone else to be the first to buy the game and tell them it's "okay".

I can try to send you the screen shot. I see what I think is the objective on the small map but I got nothing on the larger map. I even tried jumping to it by clicking on the location on the small map. Nothing worked. No objectives on the map for me.....

Hm, very odd. I'll load up the Winterstorm Demo tomorrow and see if I can duplicate that, but I don't recall ever seeing that problem or having it reported. So, I hope it's just that we're missing something explanation-wise. The objective on the map should look like a flagpole with a blue or red flag on it. I'll post a screenshot from the Winterstorm tutorial as I see it here tomorrow.

I'll try the tutorial again in a bit and see if I can get it to show or at least take a screen shot of what it is I see for you.

Yes but why have 2 of the 3 phases with the same name? Why have two orders phases? Why not have an orders phase, a combat phase and a reaction phase or something? Why two orders phases and then a reaction phase and why no clock so I can tell how much time has elapsed?

Sorry, what do you mean by 3 phases and two orders phase? There is only one orders phase and one reaction phase per turn. There is also a one-time initial setup phase at the start of each scenario before Turn 1. Instead of a clock, you should see a display with text like the following, as the phases end and move on to the next one:

Turn 1 Orders Phase
Turn 1 Reaction Phase
Turn 2 Orders Phase
Turn 2 Reaction Phase... etc.

Not in the game I played. There is an order phase where you give them. Then an orders phase where the turn is played out. Then a reaction phase where the second half of the turn is played. The first two phases both have the same name. OR I tried to give units orders that weren't accepting them....that could be. Not sure if PC would do that or not. It could in some games.

Here is a problem for me. You are going to tell me, that out of a 5 tank platoon, I can watch all 4 other tanks in my platoon get killed, without our own fire having any noticeable effect on the enemy at all, and we will hold our positions until we too are killed?

I'm not buying that in real life. Men want to live. Pixels don't care. Your modifiers should only allow that if it happens within the same 80 second turn. Not if it happens over more than one. Even a two tank loss with no visible effects to the enemy, from our fire, and I'm pulling back out of there.

Well, I see retreats pretty often, but honestly there were certainly instances where platoons fought to the death and in pretty much all fronts in WWII there were instances where mounting losses did not result in a guaranteed withdrawal or retreat. It's unlikely in my experience that a platoon that attrits gradually will not at some point fail a morale test and retreat. Generally those that get wiped out without a retreat do get wiped out pretty quickly.

Note that the one factor that is not considered, which you describe in your analysis, is "no visible effect to the enemy". Our platoon morale is based on platoon losses. Individual morale is based on individual unit damage/casualties. A unit can fail both an individual morale check and/or a platoon morale check. Either can result in a retreat, so you can have just one or two tanks in the platoon bug out or the whole platoon withdraw at once.

Again, you get to intervene every 40 seconds. Unlike CM, Panzer Command puts more of the burden of this onto you the player. If you want them out of there, pull them out. The AI is told to do the same thing. I assume if it didn't pull those units out of there, it was for one of two reasons. 1. It felt it could still accomplish something there, perhaps it was on a key objective with no other forces nearby or 2. It only had a chance to withdraw in the reaction phase and Winterstorm did not have a Reaction Withdraw order (Kharkov does). The AI in Kharkov is also much better than the Winterstorm AI, so that may also have played a role - I haven't played against the old Winterstorm AI in a while, so I may be misremembering its tendency to withdraw, maybe that was a Kharkov improvement.

Yes, but we're not talking about what I did. We are talking about the computer sitting there and having me over the course of 3 or 4 turns kill 5 tanks while they don't blink.

I understand that a human player can do whatever they want. I'm concerned with what the AI will do. I normally make alot of scenarios vs the AI. I have entire series of scenarios that deal with AI fights exclusively.

Now that you bring it up. At what level am I commanding in PC? Since all wargames are a balance between a simulation and a game. I'm interested to see what part you have that is simulation and what part is game.
There must be tradeoffs unless you want to start ducking bullets while you play the simulation on your computer...which I don't!
What you seem to be trying to model is a Bn/Bde sized actions. Colonel or Major on down. But even that is a trade off. He would only give orders to at most 10 men and none of them would be platoon commanders. Well, he might in an extremely rare situatation give commands to a platoon commander.

It's an excellent question. Battalion is about the right level, but we have some fuzzy areas which are frankly in there because it's a game and we wanted to keep in some elements that would make the game more fun, even if they blur the hard "command level" line. By default, you tell the platoon leader what to engage. As an option, you can also target his platoon individually. As a further option, you can tell them each what ammo type to use. It is not necessary at all to go down to that level, but we have it in there as a concession to the fact that in certain stuations and for certain players it adds a lot of fun to be able to do that.

Still, apart from the extra targeting/ammo type details, I think we do a pretty good job of otherwise encouraging the player to command each platoon leader and not micro-manage too heavily, while making it possible for critical situations or those who just prefer that play style.

You have IMO taken the right road at exactly the right place. There must be enough of a game in it to make it fun. There should be enough of a simulation in it to make it as realistic as possible.

The choices you have made are the ones that have for too long been missing in computer tactical wargaming. Let the computer do what it dos best. Handle the small details while you concentrate on winning.

The chain of command with a bit of fuzzy added in for fun is just the right formula I think. It was for us on the US Army project. We got rave reviews but they still didn't buy it.....lol....

SL/ASL was a bad example for you. Those maps, while fixed, were also moveable in four directions per map. Could be combined into limitless configurations. I have 4 full sets of SL/ASL maps. I'm very aware of their capability. At the moment PC is nowhere near that.

True in terms of the ability to combine them, but see my other reply on the set maps. You're probably right that Close Combat would have been a better analogy.

Yeah..yeah...yeah....that's your story and you're sticking to it...[:D]

There's really no other option for you at the moment since PCK doesn't have an editor. I respect your position.

I take it PCK will not have editable maps then?

Not in terms of changing the map mesh, no. Although there's a scene editor include which can reshuffle the terrain, it's an internal tool and pretty darn primitive so I wouldn't really consider it a feature. It's more there for those who are particularly brave. But for those that are, the only thing that can't really be changed right now is the actual map mesh. You could change the terrain if you used the Scene Editor. Again though, I really would say that it's not user-friendly and included only because we felt it might be of use to some. It's easy to move a tree or a building. Redoing an entire map is a pretty huge job.

For all intents and purposes, I'd say the maps are set and that's your map palette. The scenario editor and campaign editor on the other hand are quite full-featured and apart from editing the maps themselves, everything else about a scenario or campaign is quite easy to change with user-friendly tools.

I've just spent two months making a map for a single scenario for a tournament I'm putting on this summer. So I know how detailed map making can be. I've even written articles on how to make realistic maps. Normally it takes me a day to do a map. This one is different....obviously.

Not sure about PCK.More than likely if it doesn't have a map editor I won't buy it. In the roughly 5 years I've owned CMBB/CMAK I've put out well over 100 scenarios. That's a big part of what I do with a game. I put out scenarios I like to play. Then I let the rest of you play them too....[:D]
Without a map editor that's not going to happen.

Well, you might find that you get a fair amount of fun out of it as a player, whether you decide to design for it or not.

I might but I only have room for one tactical game system at a time. I put too much into the hobby to do it as a second thought.

Maybe I'll need to wait for the next game in the series. Do you know what that is? What theater?

No set title or specific campaign yet, but it should be focused on a few things:

1. Improved design tools (map editor and such), removing limitations on map size, etc.
2. Adding the Western Front

Even if you don't join us on this cruise, I'm pretty sure we'll get you on the next one. [;)]

Regards,

- Erik

That's a good choice.

You have at least one more Eastern Front module to do as well at some point. The King Tigers, JS-2's , JSU's and all the big cats are missing......hmmmmm....that can't stay that way forever.....

Hopefully you will grandfather the first two titles in the series and bring them all to the same level of game play as well when you get it set.

I wasn't aware that there was a non tutorial scenario I could play on the tutorial. I'll have 2 check that out as well.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Here is a problem for me. You are going to tell me, that out of a 5 tank platoon, I can watch all 4 other tanks in my platoon get killed, without our own fire having any noticeable effect on the enemy at all, and we will hold our positions until we too are killed?

I'm not buying that in real life. Men want to live. Pixels don't care. Your modifiers should only allow that if it happens within the same 80 second turn. Not if it happens over more than one. Even a two tank loss with no visible effects to the enemy, from our fire, and I'm pulling back out of there.

It's true. Buy it or not. Tanks will try to pummel the enemy even if most of their shots bounce off. In France 1944 two M-10s engaged a Tiger II. Their rounds repeatedly bounced off the front. In fact 18 hits were recorded. The Tiger II crew bailed out. One round had hit on the ball mount machinegun and wounded the hull gunner. He screamed and the crew thought the tank had been penetrated and they bailed. Panzer Command has critical hits like that. Even if the lion's share of hits are not effective a lucky one can still penetrate or stun the target.

Oh, so you guys are tag teaming me now huh? [:D] [8D]

I have records of an M8 Greyhound killing a Panther in the Ardennes during the Battle of the Bulge too. It happened once to my knowledge. Not saying it wasn't more than that. That's not what I would base a combat result system on, where M8 Greyhounds and Panthers were concerned though.

Men sign up to be patriotic. They do it for God, Country and Mom. They fight for the men around them. Those in the tank with them. Study after study has been done about the hows and whys of combat effectiveness. The most important people in the world are first the people in that tank and second the people in their platoon. Everything else comes in a very distant 3rd.

But again....real men want to stay alive. Pixel men will fight until they die for you if you tell them to. If real men would stand until killed there would never have been millions of POW's taken by both sides during the war. We can discuss this as much as you like but I'm thinking your model is pretty much set by this time.

I'm only concerned with it where the AI is doing the running of units not a human player. I'll play the tutorial again to see if the AI holds it's ground while I kill all of their tanks again. According to some of the responses on here they might break and retreat this time.

Another interesting story where King Tigers are concerned is one that was hit on the glacis plate with a smoke shell. The crew heard the shell hit and then all this smoke...they bailed out because obviously the tank was on fire. This was also during the Battle of the Bulge.

The Russians were notorious for bailing from their tanks. Even when things were going good. THOUSANDS of tanks were abandoned in 1941 with nothing wrong with them. Their crews just quit the fight.

We can discuss this to great lengths and I will be happy to if you like. I have a pretty extensive library and most of it concerns tactical combat in WWII. I was also assigned to an Armored Division in Germany in the 70's, so been there done that...

Your combat model is what it is. It may work just fine. I was only voicing my initial opinion of how the game played compared to CM. I would want to play the game multiple times before saying there is anything "wrong" with your combat model. Besides each combat model is different. There are about as many ways to model a combat situation as there are people willing to play the game and tell you where your model is wrong....I'm not here for that.

Thanks for responding. I appreciate the time and effort you guys are putting into this game series and your cooperation in answering a potential gamer for the system.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Erik Rutins]

Ok, last reply for tonight, need to get some rest!

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Alot of gamers pre-bought CMSF. The old AH marketing strategy. Buy it because WE MADE IT kind of a thing....support the company....God and Country kind of a thing.

Some have asked for, and if I understand it correctly, gotten their money back. After 7 patches and a year later the game is where it should have been to begin with. Alot of gamers are waiting now for someone else to be the first to buy the game and tell them it's "okay".

Ah, ok, understood. That's fine, I really expected nothing different. I believe Kharkov can stand on its own merits and that once gamers play it, it will be seen as a good game that's excellent bang for the buck for tactical wargame fans.

I'll try the tutorial again in a bit and see if I can get it to show or at least take a screen shot of what it is I see for you.

Ok, thanks.

Not in the game I played. There is an order phase where you give them. Then an orders phase where the turn is played out. Then a reaction phase where the second half of the turn is played. The first two phases both have the same name. OR I tried to give units orders that weren't accepting them....that could be. Not sure if PC would do that or not. It could in some games.

Aha, now I think I understand the confusion. Each phase after ending goes to a replay. So you put in your orders or reactions, hit the button to end the phase and it calculates the results. Then it starts to play the replay for you, since this is a WEGO game. That's why you thought you were seeing two phases for each phase - one's the part where you get to place/change orders, the other is the replay. If you try to give orders during the replay it definitely won't work, it's just playing back the results of the phase orders for you. You have to end the replay to get to the next phase where you can enter/change orders again.

Yes, but we're not talking about what I did. We are talking about the computer sitting there and having me over the course of 3 or 4 turns kill 5 tanks while they don't blink.

I understand that a human player can do whatever they want. I'm concerned with what the AI will do. I normally make alot of scenarios vs the AI. I have entire series of scenarios that deal with AI fights exclusively.

I guess all I can say is that I've seen the AI retreat and I've seen plenty of platoons fail morale before being wiped out, so it is certainly not uncommon. Perhaps the AI is better at choosing when to withdraw in Kharkov, but I've been playing against the Kharkov AI for so long now that I don't remember what the exact differences were in terms of how it behaved in Winterstorm.

My general sense though is that the Panzer Command AI is, overall, better than the CM AI. But it may be that an experienced CM designer can get the CM AI to do things better than it does in the scenarios I've played. I always enjoyed CM vs. a human much more than vs. AI (and the same could be said of Panzer Command and pretty much any wargame of course).

You have IMO taken the right road at exactly the right place. There must be enough of a game in it to make it fun. There should be enough of a simulation in it to make it as realistic as possible.
The choices you have made are the ones that have for too long been missing in computer tactical wargaming. Let the computer do what it dos best. Handle the small details while you concentrate on winning.
The chain of command with a bit of fuzzy added in for fun is just the right formula I think. It was for us on the US Army project. We got rave reviews but they still didn't buy it.....lol....

Thanks, though I hope the last part works out better for us. [;)]

Yeah..yeah...yeah....that's your story and you're sticking to it...[:D]
There's really no other option for you at the moment since PCK doesn't have an editor. I respect your position.

Ok, yep - I'll add though that everyone who wants us to build a nice map editor should consider that it will probably get done even faster if we sell more copies of Kharkov. [;)]

I've just spent two months making a map for a single scenario for a tournament I'm putting on this summer. So I know how detailed map making can be. I've even written articles on how to make realistic maps. Normally it takes me a day to do a map. This one is different....obviously.

Ok, didn't realize you had quite that level of experience and dedication. I can see that map-making is a real passion for you and I respect that too. As part of the promotion, we'll be releasing a "Google Maps Tour" of our Kharkov campaign battlefields next week, stay tuned for that, you might enjoy it.

I might but I only have room for one tactical game system at a time. I put too much into the hobby to do it as a second thought.

Hey, everyone needs a break from time to time. [;)]

That's a good choice.
You have at least one more Eastern Front module to do as well at some point. The King Tigers, JS-2's , JSU's and all the big cats are missing......hmmmmm....that can't stay that way forever.....

Yep, we might add those into the next release too, to give Eastern Front fans something to keep them happy while we focus on the Western Front. Time will tell...

Hopefully you will grandfather the first two titles in the series and bring them all to the same level of game play as well when you get it set.

We'll most likely do it the same way we're doing this one - include updated versions of the first two releases worth of campaigns and scenarios that work with the new release for those who already own the first two releases.

Regards,

- Erik

[Mad Russian]

Another thing I really like about PC is allowing infantry in a halftrack to fire with limited effectiveness. CM didn't do that and it was wrong. But they had a problem with two targets being fired on by the same location. M3 Grant/Lees, T-28's...etc....

CM has multistory buildings. Does PC?

Do your different building types affect combat differently? The tutorial says that infantry in a buidling generally should be safe. Not if the building is wooden and the artillery is anything over 75mm. 105mm artillery has a good enough blast to do damage to men in wooden buildings.

Will there be a human wave attack option for the Russians? I've seen that discussed both ways before. My research tells me it's absolutely historically accurate.

Well enough questions. I'll go do the tutorial again and see what else I can learn on my own.

Thanks again for all your answers.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

The flags are there in the other scenario. The briefings too...go figure...[;)]

I guess the reason I didn't see them the first time is I was fighting with the view. I don't have a mouse with 3 buttons. Mine has a wheel in the center. So trying to do the "shift + mouse over" to get my view right was getting me a bit frustrated.

I don't know where in the game to go to slow down the mouse movement yet either...

More later.

Good Hunting.

MR

[junk2drive]

Push down the mouse wheel and hold, then move the mouse forward and backward etc.

The scroll wheel itself adjust the view height about the battlefield. There are also preset viewpoints with the 1 2 3 on the top of the keyboard.

Moving to the map edges scrolls the map like most games.

From the Main Menu, click Options. The next screen should show Mouse control and Camera control speed adjustments.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Yes, I could see who I was targeting and who was targeting me.
But while I could see WHO I was targeting the game didn't tell me WHAT I was targeting. I had to go to check every single unit and then trace the target lines to see what it was.

The bottom of the box at the lower left has the target of each unit. The range and what type of ammo you are using.

I see that. But if you can tell me right here and now what 1/1/1 203 Tank is you are a much better gamer than I am. That tells me exactly nothing except that I hope the target is armor of some kind.

Whether it's a T-34, a KV-1 or a T-26 is all a mystery until you go look in person.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

Is there anyway to tell how long a scenario is? I'd kind of like to know if the battle is expected to last another couple minutes or a couple of hours....I saved it tonight not knowing what to expect from it.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Stridor]

MR,

Below each side's insignia there is a victory meter which moves up if you are doing well and moves down if you are doing badly. The same for your opponent. Once the needle reaches the top, that side wins. The quality of the win/loss (marginal/decisive/legendary) will depend on how well you have done at the expense of your enemy.

Although this still doesn't tell you how long you have left to play the scenario, the rate of change of these victory needles does at least give you some indication.

Good scenario briefings will also tell you the expected play time.

[ravinhood]

Yeah I never liked canned time frames of games. A battle could last days not minutes or it could last minutes not days. It should be that way that the player never really knows when the battle is over until one surrenders or one withdraws or like the victory meter....I'd like to have seen even that be a turn on/off feature so the fow of not knowing when the battle is going to be over is there. Nobody looked at watches and said, ok at 2pm this battle is over.

[Staggerwing]

I have to throw in my 2cent here and say that the view controls of PC
are a lot easier than CM. Don't get me wrong, I do like the CM series
and PC in their own ways. In some ways CM feels more like playing a
miniatures game as you have to micromanage a lot more.
For me it goes like this- when I am in a Close Combat mood I play
PC:OWS and when I'm in a Steel Panthers mood I play CM. (Though
sometimes when I'm in a Steel Panthers mood I play...Steel Panthers [;)]
CC I stopped playing because my presbyopia makes seeing whats going on
less than pleasurable and I still have not gotten a straight answer from
anyone as to whether the resolution on CC:COI is worth buying the game again.)

[slybelle]

I have seen all the comparisons to CM, but are there really any comparisons to Theatre of War?  I know it is at a different level, real-time, and had some initial shortcomings, but are they comparable in anyway?  Or just too different?

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
CM has multistory buildings. Does PC?

Yes - though the only one in the demo scenario is the church. You can put a squad up in the belltower and another in the bottom floor.

Do your different building types affect combat differently? The tutorial says that infantry in a buidling generally should be safe. Not if the building is wooden and the artillery is anything over 75mm. 105mm artillery has a good enough blast to do damage to men in wooden buildings.

Yes, but that's new in Kharkov. In Winterstorm, buildings were just pretty darn tough. There's now a check whenever an infantry unit in a building is hit with HE fire. It checks based on the size of the HE fire and whether it's a light (wooden) or heavy (stone) building. If the HE passes the check, it's assumed to penetrate the building and the infantry inside receives zero benefit from being in the building, takes the full effect of the HE instead.

Will there be a human wave attack option for the Russians? I've seen that discussed both ways before. My research tells me it's absolutely historically accurate.

Not as a special order, no plan for that at present - in Panzer Command, you make your own human wave. It pretty much would be lining up your infantry and giving a huge mass of them Rush orders towards a particular target. I realize CM does it as it's own thing with some special morale effects. I could be convinced of the need for that, but right now I'm not sure it's necessary.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The flags are there in the other scenario. The briefings too...go figure...[;)]

Ok, well at least I'm not crazy then. [;)]

I guess the reason I didn't see them the first time is I was fighting with the view. I don't have a mouse with 3 buttons. Mine has a wheel in the center. So trying to do the "shift + mouse over" to get my view right was getting me a bit frustrated.

Click down on the wheel - that's your middle mouse button. Instead of scrolling it, click it. If you click and hold and move the mouse, your view should pan around. It ends up being a much easier way of looking around than in CM in my experience. The Shift+Mouse is the backup for those without middle mouse buttons, but if you have a mouse wheel, it should work to click it.

I don't know where in the game to go to slow down the mouse movement yet either...

When you start the game and you're in the main menu, click on options there and there are two gauges for camera scroll and rotate speed. Those will adjust it.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
I see that. But if you can tell me right here and now what 1/1/1 203 Tank is you are a much better gamer than I am. That tells me exactly nothing except that I hope the target is armor of some kind.
Whether it's a T-34, a KV-1 or a T-26 is all a mystery until you go look in person.

Yeah, I agree, that's why we changed the naming convention for Kharkov to include unit type. Did you try the double-Tab view yet?

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Is there anyway to tell how long a scenario is? I'd kind of like to know if the battle is expected to last another couple minutes or a couple of hours....I saved it tonight not knowing what to expect from it.

Scenarios do not have a fixed length. However, some have a victory point bonus which starts on a certain turn and helps the defender, effectively creating a turn limit since the attacker will lose if he doesn't win fast enough. Watch the victory point bars and you'll see this effect at work - in Winterstorm I believe it started with Turn 20 or so.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: slybelle
I have seen all the comparisons to CM, but are there really any comparisons to Theatre of War?  I know it is at a different level, real-time, and had some initial shortcomings, but are they comparable in anyway?  Or just too different?

That's a tougher comparison to make, since TOW is real-time and has individual infantry and detailed ballistics as such. TOW always struck me as "skirmish CM" - smaller scale, fast action, etc. It's a fun game, but not really CM or Panzer Command.

Panzer Command works great for small battles - I suspect you could recreate the feel of many of the TOW scenarios with our reinforcement rules as well, but it's designed to be turn-based and more of a thinking game, with support for far more on the map in terms of vehicles and squads than you generally see in TOW. Also, TOW's graphics are prettier, but it also has much steeper hardware requirements to really run it smoothly. We decided to stick to a much lower minimum spec to make sure that the largest possible audience of wargamers would be able to run the game.

Regards,

- Erik

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: slybelle
I have seen all the comparisons to CM, but are there really any comparisons to Theatre of War?  I know it is at a different level, real-time, and had some initial shortcomings, but are they comparable in anyway?  Or just too different?

I've never played TOW so all I know is from posts. TOW and PC both have relative sighting not borg. PCK has 88mm Flak guns, TOW doesn't. You can enter and fight from buildings in PC, not so for TOW. One guy can't snipe off a Tiger II crew then capture it and drive it home in PCK.

One thing that might be interesting is to make a PCK scenario from a TOW scenario and see how the play and outcome compares.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Mobius
You can enter and fight from buildings in PC, not so for TOW. One guy can't snipe off a Tiger II crew then capture it and drive it home in PCK.

Good point, I'd say these are pretty key differences. Also smoke and on-map mortars.

[slybelle]

Thaks guys...one thing is for sure, really seems like good support from the forum...now if only the game was available today, it would make a no brainer:)