CMx1 vs PCK

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
I am very interested in PCK, but saw that the ranges had been altered for tank guns at longer ranges, is that true, or were they refering to the miniature rules?

No, that's correct - we compressed the long ranges a bit (by about 1/3) to make the 1km x 1km maps a bit less cramped. Two things to add to that - first, when we go to bigger maps we will "uncompress" and second all the data is open in text files so if it really bothers you the "uncompressed" range data is available you are free to edit it to suit your preference. We found that compressing it a bit did not give up much historical accuracy while improving playability.

It's a distortion, but IMHO not a particularly bad one and one that tends to be invisible during play.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh
Not to try and be argumentative. I'll be eagerly purchasing PC:K and trying the new scenario creation tools, given the larger force mixes, weather conditions, etc. With 2,000 ASL, PB, PG, Panzer (Yaquinto) and other scenarios sitting on my shelf I am thinking there should be some inspiration somewhere for one or two decent and reasonably well researched scenarios using the editor.

Thanks, Michael. I look forward to seeing what you can do.

It's not our goal to stay with fixed maps either. A map editor is at the top of the future development priority list. In the meantime, as Stridor has posted, map editing is possible even now for those who are comfortable with free 3D tools like Milkshape and graphics programs like Photoshop for texture editing.

We've tried to make the existing maps both realistic and reusable - personally I've found the current selection provides a lot of replayability for random battles and campaigns, but I certainly agree that the more we have the better.

Regards,

- Erik

[thewood1]

Here is a post I made on another forum.  Just wanted to make sure Erik saw my opinion:
 
"Is it me or is that a pretty drastic step to take for the benefit of "feel". While lack of a map editor is a bummer, a change like this, in realistic ranges, seems a pretty risky game to play in the wargaming market. There are many issues where realism can be argued, including armor values, but gun ranges are one of the few that have little room for interpretation. It seems that the downside of doing this far outweighs the "potential" benefit. I can even understand, but not like, 1km limits in maps. It can be a technical issue. But the gun ranges is a conscious decision to alter the ability to get real life results. No abstraction, no technology limitations, just a design decision.

As an added data point, 1C and BFC got roasted over trying to do the exact same thing in ToW and it was the first thing BFC made 1C change."
 
While the map editor is a "must have" for me, I am excited enough about the potential for PCK that I can get by until one comes out.  You can still play the scenarios that come with it.  The range issue bothers me though.  It can drastically change the balance of engagements to sides with weapons that in real life had shorter ranges than others.  It would seem to me that you are especially giving lower velocity weapons a much bigger advantage (or less of a disadvantage) than they should have.

[Erik Rutins]

Hi thewood1,

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Here is a post I made on another forum.  Just wanted to make sure Erik saw my opinion:

"Is it me or is that a pretty drastic step to take for the benefit of "feel". While lack of a map editor is a bummer, a change like this, in realistic ranges, seems a pretty risky game to play in the wargaming market. There are many issues where realism can be argued, including armor values, but gun ranges are one of the few that have little room for interpretation. It seems that the downside of doing this far outweighs the "potential" benefit. I can even understand, but not like, 1km limits in maps. It can be a technical issue. But the gun ranges is a conscious decision to alter the ability to get real life results. No abstraction, no technology limitations, just a design decision.

Well, we tried it both ways and we felt the maps played better with a bit of range compression. I hear you though and this is certainly to us as well an imperfect solution. One difference between Panzer Command and many other games is that the data is entirely open and editable.

Honestly, if we get enough requests, we'll just release an additional data pack post-release with realistic ranges so folks who prefer than can swap it in. It's not a big deal from our point of view to do that, but there haven't been a great many requests.

Please feel free to repost this on whatever other forum you posted on.

While the map editor is a "must have" for me, I am excited enough about the potential for PCK that I can get by until one comes out.  You can still play the scenarios that come with it.  The range issue bothers me though.  It can drastically change the balance of engagements to sides with weapons that in real life had shorter ranges than others.  It would seem to me that you are especially giving lower velocity weapons a much bigger advantage (or less of a disadvantage) than they should have.

I can tell you having tested it both ways that I didn't find a single situation where the adjustments we made drastically changed the balance of engagements. I think had we done this on larger maps, there might have been some real negatives, but we never would have done it on larger maps. Also, I believe in the case of TOW there was some fairly extreme range compression going on in the original release (again, based on memory), whereas we're looking at something more like 1000m becoming 1300m.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
It can drastically change the balance of engagements to sides with weapons that in real life had shorter ranges than others.  It would seem to me that you are especially giving lower velocity weapons a much bigger advantage (or less of a disadvantage) than they should have.

I just re-read this and realized that I think you may have misunderstood me.

We didn't give shorter range weapons longer ranges. We gave longer range weapons shorter ranges, in effect. We compressed their accuracy and penetration values so that, for example, 1300m worth of accuracy/penetration values now fit within 1000m. So when you're firing at something 1000m away, you're using the accuracy/penetration that you normally would at 1300m. It makes it a bit tougher to hit things that are far away and makes the maps feel slightly larger in terms of engagement possibilities. It's not a drastic effect - I think most folks had they not been told would not notice it in action because the maps are 1km x 1km.

If our maps were 2km x 2km or larger, it would start to become problematic and more obvious but we would not have felt any need for it on larger maps.

Note that the original Winterstorm had a bit more range compression, we eased up on it for Kharkov.

Regards,

- Erik

[thewood1]

I still don't understand the logic in compressing the ranges.  If you have a 1000m map, you have a 1000m map.  It would seem to me being able to penetrate at long range actually compresses the map, making it harder for more heavily armored AFVs to manuever, where they could IRL.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
I still don't understand the logic in compressing the ranges.  If you have a 1000m map, you have a 1000m map.  It would seem to me being able to penetrate at long range actually compresses the map, making it harder for more heavily armored AFVs to manuever, where they could IRL.

I think you must be misunderstanding me. The changes we made make maneuver at 1km range slightly easier, not harder.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
I still don't understand the logic in compressing the ranges.  If you have a 1000m map, you have a 1000m map.  It would seem to me being able to penetrate at long range actually compresses the map, making it harder for more heavily armored AFVs to manuever, where they could IRL.

The scale is compressed not the map. If IRL at a distance 900m a gun can penetrate 8cm and at 1350m it can only penetrate 7cm. So in PCK it penetrates 7cm @ 900m the scale is compressed. Now your more armored AFVs can manuever closer to the gun.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

We didn't give shorter range weapons longer ranges. We gave longer range weapons shorter ranges, in effect. We compressed their accuracy and penetration values so that, for example, 1300m worth of accuracy/penetration values now fit within 1000m. So when you're firing at something 1000m away, you're using the accuracy/penetration that you normally would at 1300m. It makes it a bit tougher to hit things that are far away and makes the maps feel slightly larger in terms of engagement possibilities. It's not a drastic effect - I think most folks had they not been told would not notice it in action because the maps are 1km x 1km.

Can the game be modded to reflect WW2 weapons data more accurately?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
Can the game be modded to reflect WW2 weapons data more accurately?

You can change the data anyway you want.
But I don't see why it isn't accurate the way it is now? The distance system is in sync with the time system so things work realsitically. If you change the weapons ranges you would have to change the movement and sighting data to bring them back in sync.

[thewood1]

Now I really am confused.  Sighting and movement rates are also compressed.  So have the units been slowed down and visibility compressed as well?  It seems like you guys went to a lot of effort just to cram in long range combat, which IIRC is the minority in engagements in 42/43.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Now I really am confused.  Sighting and movement rates are also compressed.  So have the units been slowed down and visibility compressed as well?  It seems like you guys went to a lot of effort just to cram in long range combat, which IIRC is the minority in engagements in 42/43.

Yes, it would have to wouldn't it?
Time is real time. What I mean if it takes 80 seconds to go from A to B then velocity(movement) should be d/t. So if your d is 900m in PCK you must be traveling at 1350m per 80 seconds IRL. So if Prince goes about changing just the range of weapons he has only changed half the equation. If you change all ranges of 900m to 1350m then by the same token all units that move 90m per turn will have to be changed to move 135m a turn.

[thewood1]

Changing d/t like that is the equivalent of slowing down compared to RL.  All I am trying to figure out is why you chose a game scale and then changed the RL parameters to fit it, instead of shoosing a slightly different game scale. I would think that would give 1300m maps.

Is infantry combat and speed also scaled like AFV?

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Changing d/t like that is the equivalent of slowing down compared to RL.  All I am trying to figure out is why you chose a game scale and then changed the RL parameters to fit it, instead of shoosing a slightly different game scale. I would think that would give 1300m maps.
Is infantry combat and speed also scaled like AFV?

Time is constant it is not slowed down.
I don't think infantry is affected.

They could have made the 'm' anything they wanted. Don't focus on the meters thing. The units of measure are not important if everything and time are in scale. And they are.

[thewood1]

Isn't the "m" thing relatively important from an historical perspective?  It sounds me like terrain/area is 1:1 scale, time is 1:1 scale, but everything else is 1/3 or 30% or etc.  At that point you have scale mismatch.  Why bother using a unit of measure or historical data?  To me, if you compress one units stats, you should compress them all or you are skewing historical results to one side or the other.  By compressing a Sherman's range vs. a Panzerfaust, are you skewing slightly one side over the other?
 
btw, I know time is not slowed, you are changing d which alters the units speed.  I am not talking game speed, but unit speed.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
To me, if you compress one units stats, you should compress them all or you are skewing historical results to one side or the other.  By compressing a Sherman's range vs. a Panzerfaust, are you skewing slightly one side over the other?

At Panzerfaust ranges accuracy of the Sherman is the least of its problems. That for the 75mm/L40 is 95% or more at 500m. (See image) Much out of range for a Panzerfaust or AT rifle grenade. So the question would be does the Sherman sight the faust team at or before the Panzerfaust is within range? The answer is: It might. If the Sherman was stationary and unbuttoned. Sure. If moving or buttoned or both. Maybe not.

[thewood1]

You're missing my point on the scale mismatch.  I used Shermans and PFs as an example only.

[thewood1]

Am I mistaken or is there a difference in almost 25% between 1000m and 1300m on the 75L40/L48?

[Erik Rutins]

Let me make a few comments on this and hopefully lay it to rest.

I understand your concern. My initial response is to say that the changes we made do not make the game unrealistic in effect. I can understand a logical argument against that statement, but my reply to that would have several parts.

First, our goal was to make long range fire a bit less accurate and long range maneuver a bit easier. Therefore the key focus of the compression is at the longer ranges. This is more difficult to explain in some ways than it is to experience, but part of it is that at shorter ranges there is less compression than at longer ranges. Even if there were full compression, for example, that Panzerfaust might fire 27m instead of 30m (it doesn't, but I wanted to make a point about the lessened effects of even full compression at short ranges).

Second, every system was tested, every scenario tested, to make sure that historical results were the outcome and that historical tactics would work. In fact, a good part of the compression rationale was to give a little more room for save maneuver and thus more tactical options. This was initially more necessary in Winterstorm where smoke was not an option.

Third, we plan to move to larger maps with the next release, at which point the remaining compression will be removed from the system.

In the meantime, if there's any consensus that gamers would rather try it without compression to see if in fact we were thinking clearly or not, we'll put out a post-release uncompressed data pack that lets you try it without the compression.

From my experience with the game though, it plays very realistically and the compression is effectively invisible and not obtrusive during gameplay, though it enables some additional gameplay choices.

Regards,

- Erik

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Am I mistaken or is there a difference in almost 25% between 1000m and 1300m on the 75L40/L48?

As you can see the normal gun accuracy curves are sinusoidal. So as Erik is saying the effect doesn't show up except at longer ranges.