CMBB vs. PCO

[Nox0s]

Yes I read the lengthy post by Mad Russian before posting this, but I'm selfish and figured I'd get quicker and more responses if I made my own thread.

It all sounds great from that thread, but obviously Mad Russian is biased (not his fault, he's on the team). I look at the reviews of PC: Winterstorm and PC: Kharkov and saw they both averaged around 6.2 and 6.7 respectively by the press. Slightly higher by players themselves (in the 7.3 range or so on average).

Now you can say, oh, but these mainstream gaming review websites (Gamespy, Gamespot, IGN, etc.) don't UNDERSTAND wargaming and aren't into it. That's why they give them bad reviews!

In response to that, I say this: CMBB got a 9.1 and Editor's choice award from Gamespot, THE most mainstream gaming website there is, a 94 from Gamespy, a 9 from IGN, and a 9 from PC Gamer. Those might just be the highest scores a wargame has ever achieved (as in a "wargaming" game, not "war game"). It averaged 8.9 from the press (metacritic), which is also extremely high for a wargame. Users gave it a 9.7 average. (also at metacritic)

So please understand my skepticism as to whether PCO will surpass CMBB. Obviously it will in graphics, but I couldn't care less about that (like probably 90% of everyone on here).

And please note I'm not a "hater" or out to support BFC in all that they do. Quite the contrary, I was extremely disappointed in CMSF's initial release which was a total disaster... and now, it STILL has some very serious problems. It seems they have gone totally backwards. The ridiculous QB system, the crappy linear campaign system as opposed to the awesome "Operation" system of old, the COMPLETE LACK of tcp-ip play via wego, the fact that no longer will maps in QB be randomly generated, and, well... it's not WW2 and Javelins take the fun out of everything.

Now I hope they get CM:N right... but they've already said that although there will be tcp-ip wego, it will be WITHOUT replay which is a huge issue for me. Also, still, maps will not be randomly generated for quick battles. They seem to not give a crap what their player base wants and just go headlong in this "realtime 1-1" obsession regardless of the features they sacrifice along the way and regardless of what anyone says. So let's just say I'm not holding my breath.

On topic now... about PCO

1) Will PCO feature unit purchasing or some sort of QB system similar to CMBB's?
2) He stated in his thread there will be tcp-ip but was talking about dropbox too so I was kinda confused. Just to be clear... WILL THERE BE TURN BASED WEGO TCP-IP play? (I hate pbem with a passion)
3) How exactly does the AI work? In CMBB it was pretty retarded, just rushing at objectives without regard to any kind of flanking or anything. In CMSF it followed preset (multiple if the map maker so chose to add replayability) by the map maker. Of course, this meant that the AI was incapable of having any sort of reaction to the player's moves or capable of "calling an audible"
4) Will PCO be at least up to battalion level size battles? One thing that pissed me off immensely about CMSF was that it was almost always company size battles. I want those epic 5000 point QBs back with 20 tanks on each side and 5-6 companies of infantry!!
5) What exactly will make this version of PC be better than the first two, which got panned by reviewers? Have the problems that resulted in those bad reviews been resolved?

I know good AI is possible, because I tried Achtung Panzer: Kharkov and was AMAZED by the AI. Just a quick example. I give an order to a group of SPWs loaded with panzergrenadiers to go to a point out in the snow maybe a 800 meters away. They're about 300 meters from the nearest road, and the direct route through the snow is shorter (so in CMBB they would have taken that route unless I micro managed)... but no, they drive straight to the road, line up in a column formation so they can all fit, drive along the road, and get off it at the closest point to where I'd marked---and all this without ANY vehicles bumping into each other (note that I also had the possibility of turning on a "do not use road" order so that they WOULD have gone straight through the snow if I wanted them to). That's damn good AI. And this was all from a SINGLE order.

Thanks. I'm sure I'll think of more questions and post more later, but that's all for now.

Much love, I really do hope this is a worthy successor (indirect but still...) to CMBB, because I really don't think CM:N will be.

[junk2drive]

No tcp/ip
wego only
random battle generator gives you a random force to pick from

[Nox0s]

Uhhhh.... didn't Mad russian say there will be tcp-ip???

So it's not a random map generator but just a random everything generator?

[junk2drive]

No tcp/ip

File sharing with dropbox is so fast it is like tcp/ip without the hassles of firewalls etc.

No random maps. period.

[junk2drive]

*PBEM - TCP/IP. Using Drop Box you can play PCO as a combination of PBEM and TCP/IP without any connections through your ISP or any server. This is quick and easy and the turns can be done either back to back as in TCP/IP or saved for later as in PBEM. This is how I play most often and this is great!

[Nox0s]

Hmmm, well that's disappointing but at least there will be wego tcp-ip with replay... even if it's through dropbox (which is kind of a hassle... but not a huge issue)

[junk2drive]

What kind of hassle have you had with dropbox?

[Nox0s]

Well it's just annoying to have to alt tab out of the game upload your turn/download his or whatever, and then "resolve" the turn. And I know cause I have played some games through this dropbox method. It's so easy in CMBB to just click "end turn" and then it does it right there in-game. I don't see why a game made 8 years later couldn't do this too?

It's like a bad interface, not necessarily a gamebreaker, but just annoying. And the more annoyances there are, the more the game suffers.

[junk2drive]

Here I am ready to play the next phase. The one after that is waiting for me. By the time I finish, my opponent will have received my files and gone on to the next. If you are both sitting at your computer playing the game, it zooms right along without minimizing or refreshing. Notice we put a button for you.

[Mad Russian]

You don't have to alt/tab anywhere. When I do a PBM game I do my file and it sends it directly to my opponent. He then does his and sends it back. I can minimize the game and go do other things until that file comes back. I don't have to wait inside the game. When the game file comes back Drop Box gives me a notification. I then maximize the game and play the file.

Nothing to it.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Nox0s]

Thanks for the answers.

Mad Russian, could you answer question #5 please? That's the one I'm especially curious about .

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: NoxNoctum

Yes I read the lengthy post by Mad Russian before posting this, but I'm selfish and figured I'd get quicker and more responses if I made my own thread.

That was good starting point....[:D]

It all sounds great from that thread, but obviously Mad Russian is biased (not his fault, he's on the team). I look at the reviews of PC: Winterstorm and PC: Kharkov and saw they both averaged around 6.2 and 6.7 respectively by the press. Slightly higher by players themselves (in the 7.3 range or so on average).

Now you can say, oh, but these mainstream gaming review websites (Gamespy, Gamespot, IGN, etc.) don't UNDERSTAND wargaming and aren't into it. That's why they give them bad reviews!

In response to that, I say this: CMBB got a 9.1 and Editor's choice award from Gamespot, THE most mainstream gaming website there is, a 94 from Gamespy, a 9 from IGN, and a 9 from PC Gamer. Those might just be the highest scores a wargame has ever achieved (as in a "wargaming" game, not "war game"). It averaged 8.9 from the press (metacritic), which is also extremely high for a wargame. Users gave it a 9.7 average. (also at metacritic)

You seem to have missed my posts where I said that I came to this project late because I passed completely on PC:OWS and only after PC:K did I begin to look at the PC series as a serious contender for a tactical WWII wargame.

You should also know that I was fairly active in the CM community. Not so much on the BFC site but fairly active at The Proving Grounds and The Scenario Depot I and II. I'm a Johnny Come Lately to the PC series.

So please understand my skepticism as to whether PCO will surpass CMBB. Obviously it will in graphics, but I couldn't care less about that (like probably 90% of everyone on here).

You won't find any of the PCO development team that will tout that PCO will surpass CMBB. They are two very different games. Now is where I tell you that if you read my post really well you'll see me point that out more than once.

And please note I'm not a "hater" or out to support BFC in all that they do. Quite the contrary, I was extremely disappointed in CMSF's initial release which was a total disaster... and now, it STILL has some very serious problems. It seems they have gone totally backwards. The ridiculous QB system, the crappy linear campaign system as opposed to the awesome "Operation" system of old, the COMPLETE LACK of tcp-ip play via wego, the fact that no longer will maps in QB be randomly generated, and, well... it's not WW2 and Javelins take the fun out of everything.

Now I hope they get CM:N right... but they've already said that although there will be tcp-ip wego, it will be WITHOUT replay which is a huge issue for me. Also, still, maps will not be randomly generated for quick battles. They seem to not give a crap what their player base wants and just go headlong in this "realtime 1-1" obsession regardless of the features they sacrifice along the way and regardless of what anyone says. So let's just say I'm not holding my breath.

We're not haters here either. The only reason we compare CMBB to PCO is everybody else wants that comparison. We are in the best position to give it to you. So you'll have to excuse my bias when I give you my opinion about what is similar/different between the two. I probably have the most playing time in CMBB of anyone on the development team and so, probably have the best perspective of how they compare.

On topic now... about PCO

1) Will PCO feature unit purchasing or some sort of QB system similar to CMBB's?

Yes.

2) He stated in his thread there will be tcp-ip but was talking about dropbox too so I was kinda confused. Just to be clear... WILL THERE BE TURN BASED WEGO TCP-IP play? (I hate pbem with a passion)

My exact quote is:


*PBEM - TCP/IP. Using Drop Box you can play PCO as a combination of PBEM and TCP/IP without any connections through your ISP or any server. This is quick and easy and the turns can be done either back to back as in TCP/IP or saved for later as in PBEM. This is how I play most often and this is great!

Using Drop Box gives you a combination of either PBEM and TCP/IP. It can be just like either. When I play it live I can send text messages to my opponent. Minimize the screen and when he sends back the turn Drop Box notifies me. All I do then is maximize the game and play the file. Quick and easy. Then if I want to save the files and play them later, as in PBEM, I can do that as well simply by leaving them in Drop Box until I'm ready to play them at a later time.

3) How exactly does the AI work? In CMBB it was pretty retarded, just rushing at objectives without regard to any kind of flanking or anything. In CMSF it followed preset (multiple if the map maker so chose to add replayability) by the map maker. Of course, this meant that the AI was incapable of having any sort of reaction to the player's moves or capable of "calling an audible"

I'm probably not the one to ask that question. I didn't find the CMBB AI as "dumb as a box of rocks" for scenarios made by designers. Only by QB's. Let's keep the discussion to CMBB since that's what my comparison is about. CMSF is an entirely different genre of game.

The PCO AI will react to your moves. You will have to play the game to determine if it reacts in ways that you like. We each have a different level of comfort when it comes to vs the AI play.

4) Will PCO be at least up to battalion level size battles? One thing that pissed me off immensely about CMSF was that it was almost always company size battles. I want those epic 5000 point QBs back with 20 tanks on each side and 5-6 companies of infantry!!

PCO can be played in roughly the same size battles as CMBB.

5) What exactly will make this version of PC be better than the first two, which got panned by reviewers? Have the problems that resulted in those bad reviews been resolved?

Reread my original post and then take a look at the features list of PCO. Those two things will answer this question. If that's not enough there are complete threads here that are for discussion/comparison/AAR's/screen shots...etc. PCO is worlds apart from the first games in the series. Not to mention the fact that if you already own PCK it's FREE!

I know good AI is possible, because I tried Achtung Panzer: Kharkov and was AMAZED by the AI. Just a quick example. I give an order to a group of SPWs loaded with panzergrenadiers to go to a point out in the snow maybe a 800 meters away. They're about 300 meters from the nearest road, and the direct route through the snow is shorter (so in CMBB they would have taken that route unless I micro managed)... but no, they drive straight to the road, line up in a column formation so they can all fit, drive along the road, and get off it at the closest point to where I'd marked---and all this without ANY vehicles bumping into each other (note that I also had the possibility of turning on a "do not use road" order so that they WOULD have gone straight through the snow if I wanted them to). That's damn good AI. And this was all from a SINGLE order.

Thanks. I'm sure I'll think of more questions and post more later, but that's all for now.

Much love, I really do hope this is a worthy successor (indirect but still...) to CMBB, because I really don't think CM:N will be.

I'm glad that you are interested enough in the update to come and ask questions about it. The game is being beta tested at the moment so we are getting closer to release.

I would agree with you. While this is not a CMBB clone as has been suggested multiple times, I think it has a tremendous amount of depth that those who played CMBB in the past will appreciate.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: NoxNoctum

Thanks for the answers.

Mad Russian, could you answer question #5 please? That's the one I'm especially curious about .

5) What exactly will make this version of PC be better than the first two, which got panned by reviewers? Have the problems that resulted in those bad reviews been resolved?

I gave a short answer to this in my detailed response to your post earlier.

But since you asked for specifics I'll give you my short list.

1. The first two games in the series were computer translations of a miniatures rule set. As such they were extremely tank heavy. PC:OWS more so than PC:K. Matrix started to turn the PC series in the direction it's taken now at PC:K.

2. There has been work in all areas of the game. Armor/infantry/artillery/air/interface/weapons/firepower/mods/processing speed and a fully operational editor. More than half the code was given some kind of adjustment. This isn't a juvenile update of the PC series but a more mature game system.

3. PCO will incorporate both PC:OWS and PC:K. So, whatever part of those games you did like will still be present. All the scenarios.

4. Map Maker alone would have made PCO worth getting. Let alone all the other changes to the system.

5. The ability to put the series in ladders and tournaments. This will bring the PC series into the same capabilities as CM with regards to gamer usability.

Hope this helps.


Good Hunting.

MR

[Nox0s]

Thanks for the answers Mad Russian, appreciate it.

I just haven't played either of the first two PC games so I don't know "what's new" so to speak from that feature list...

[Mad Russian]

I wrote the If I Own CMBB why get PCO? post for gamers like you. For those that have a history with CMBB but may not have played any of the PC series.

They are different but close enough to be complementary of each other. Of course since CMBB came first then PCO will always be compared to it. From your point of view, when you play PCO the first time compared to playing PC:OWS or PC:K for the first time a gamer will notice more similarities and more striking differences. The first game in the series didn't gain many followers that were playing CMBB. PCK gained more. Now that CMBB has started to become less willing to play on newer machines more ex-CMBB gamers will be looking for something on the Eastern Front that is as immersive as CMBB.

I personally think that PCO will be for the most part. The infantry combat model is yet to be completely overhauled but it's much better IMO than it was and gives a good account of itself.

One great thing about PCO is that it's just #3 in a series of games that will continue to grow. Whereas other games aren't being supported PC is.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Nox0s]

Good point. I look forward to game #4... what's the ETA on PCO anyways?

And where can I find these AARs that were mentioned...

EDIT: NVM, just found your DAR and AAR. But they were both armor based. Any chance we could get either an infantry only or CA AAR?

[Nox0s]

A few more questions:

1) Why on earth can you only issue 3 orders at a time?
2) Units can area fire right? (I'm guessing the answer is "of course! this is wargame!" but wanna be sure)
3) What types of orders can infantry be issued when attacking vehicles (at close range... like within 10 meters)... what kinds of animations are there for this?
4) This "reaction phase" does it happen exactly half way through the turn? (so if it's 60 second turns, 30, if it's 40, 20)
5) Can you move waypoints? What I mean by that is can I select a waypoint and move it or do I have to start all over, cancel the order, and issue a new order. This is one of the few major steps forward CMSF had that CMBB did not.
6) Similar to the above question, (again CMSF allowed you to do this while CMBB did not) can you issue orders off of a waypoint? Example: You tell your Stug to move 100 meters to the side of a T-34 in the distance (that the stug cannot see from its current position) and then click on the move order and issue an attack order off of it on the T-34.

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: NoxNoctum

2) Units can area fire right? (I'm guessing the answer is "of course! this is wargame!" but wanna be sure)

of course! this is wargame!

3) What types of orders can infantry be issued when attacking vehicles (at close range... like within 10 meters)... what kinds of animations are there for this?

There is close assault at less than 20m using the weapons the units has. You don't order specific actions at the range, keep in mind that this isn't a 1:1 game, individual men are abstracted. the smallest infnatry unit is the squad or team (although there are sniper teams).

4) This "reaction phase" does it happen exactly half way through the turn? (so if it's 60 second turns, 30, if it's 40, 20)

The default turn is 40:40, there is a 60:60 option, as well as several options that have no reaction phase.

5) Can you move waypoints?..

nope, though with the limit of 3 waypoints, this doesnt seem to be much of a limitation.

6) Similar to the above question, (again CMSF allowed you to do this while CMBB did not) can you issue orders off of a waypoint? Example: You tell your Stug to move 100 meters to the side of a T-34 in the distance (that the stug cannot see from its current position) and then click on the move order and issue an attack order off of it on the T-34.

no, The waypoints were really intended to to primarily for pathing a unit, and for eliminating a limitation in the older system that would force you to wait until a new phase to mount(enter) a building.

Thanks
rick

[Nox0s]

Hmmm that's a shame about #5 and #6. #5 is just a "makes the game more intuitive" feature, but #6 is pretty significant.

And I still wanna know why we only get 3 waypoints?!?!?!?!

And to what level are infantry abstracted? 3 guys per squad of 9 ala CMBB or something else?

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: NoxNoctum

Hmmm that's a shame about #5 and #6. #5 is just a "makes the game more intuitive" feature, but #6 is pretty significant.

And I still wanna know why we only get 3 waypoints?!?!?!?!

sorry, I thought that was a rhetorical question.

We found that within the timeframe of a turn, 3 waypoints were more than adequate to provide the amount of pathing choices. Note that besides using waypoints, you can give a unit a destination and order it to get to that destination using either a direct route, the fastest route, or a covered route. I've found the covered route option is particularly useful for infantry movement.

thanks
rick