Status?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: diablo1

The east sucks, I'd rather see all the good/great stuff go into the West front and/or African front games if there are any in the future.

+4 [:D]

+5[:D]

[Ratzki]

ORIGINAL: gijas

ORIGINAL: diablo1

The east sucks, I'd rather see all the good/great stuff go into the West front and/or African front games if there are any in the future.

... That is a grand strategy game mixed with tactical battles like those of PC. Where the player could utilize a operational map of lets say Normandy to make you happy and use counters or unit icons to move (like chess) around on for objectives like take Caen in three days...

I have a question for the powers that be...
I am aware that there seems to be another CMMC game going to be started at some later date. They have a website up, saw the link on the Battlefront site. They are going to try to do the Konrad offensive. Interesting as I have been working on something similar and was going to see if PC would be able to support a "PCMC" sort of idea.
Here is the question,... after the updates will PC Ost be able to be used to playout battles where the Referee would be able to look over a gamefile between two players and determine losses for each side and then manually set up following battles where losses can be represented?

[Mad Russian]

At the moment you could get close. Since PCO doesn't support multi-player campaigns yet an operational layer could be done by scenario off of an operational map. I've done some work in that regard myself. The thing is that you don't want to get too big and for my personally it got too realistic.

When you play a wargame the emphasis is usually on the game part of the hobby. In real life you don't attack if the other guy has a chance. Which means the battles being generated that the players will accept are walkovers. You don't want to fight something you may lose a lot of your precious pixel gruppen over. Gee, much like in real life.

So, if the battle generator is any good few of the battles generated by an operational level would be worth playing at the tactical level.

Good Hunting.

MR

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Ratzki
.....I have been working on something similar and was going to see if PC would be able to support a "PCMC" sort of idea.
Here is the question,... after the updates will PC Ost be able to be used to playout battles where the Referee would be able to look over a gamefile between two players and determine losses for each side and then manually set up following battles where losses can be represented?

I'm not sure if this answers your question, but if the referee had the players game password, he could view the players end game report which shows losses (and actually shows unit recoveries as well).

In the scenario editor, the scen designer can have platoons that are not at full strength.

See screen below.

The Random campaign system itself will also track losses of a core force. Or you can create a "defined campaign", and the system will track losses. But again, not sure exactly what mechanics you want to use.

Thanks
rick

[Ratzki]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

At the moment you could get close. Since PCO doesn't support multi-player campaigns yet an operational layer could be done by scenario off of an operational map. I've done some work in that regard myself. The thing is that you don't want to get too big and for my personally it got too realistic.

When you play a wargame the emphasis is usually on the game part of the hobby. In real life you don't attack if the other guy has a chance. Which means the battles being generated that the players will accept are walkovers. You don't want to fight something you may lose a lot of your precious pixel gruppen over. Gee, much like in real life.

So, if the battle generator is any good few of the battles generated by an operational level would be worth playing at the tactical level.

Good Hunting.

MR

I somewhat agree with the too big statement, but I am holding my breath that the PC editor and the step loss system will be easier to deal with then is the style used by CM. In this way, the game or campaign could be a fair bit larger and easier to handle in PC then it was in CM. What I think that you have to get away from is using PC to play out every combat occurance. I have been working on a system that I have "borrowed" from a cardboard wargame that i own for handling any combat that would not be pleasant to play out in PC. This game is already at battalion/company level so not much tinkering was done to get good results.
I am hoping that the map making program with PC is something, along with the scenario editor, that will produce decent scenarios quickly. This has always been another CM downer, as making a battle map was time consuming, and you either had to premake many 10's of maps or use the QB mapmaker to get enough maps to be able to play. The CM map maker AI was poor at best, and toiling over making maps that never seemed to truly represent the battlefield without gobs of research did not turn my crank either. PC's map maker looks to be something that may be way easier, and if easier, less work.
I am looking forward to getting this on my HD sooon.

[Ratzki]

ORIGINAL: Rick

I'm not sure if this answers your question, but if the referee had the players game password, he could view the players end game report which shows losses (and actually shows unit recoveries as well).

In the scenario editor, the scen designer can have platoons that are not at full strength.

See screen below.

The Random campaign system itself will also track losses of a core force. Or you can create a "defined campaign", and the system will track losses. But again, not sure exactly what mechanics you want to use.

Thanks
rick

Thanks guys for the info. So I see that for the armor, 3 out of a squad of 6 can be represented. I am imagining that the same will be said for infantry? Not only will we be able to set the units strengths of say 2 squads out of a platoon of 4 (for example), but we will be able to set the step losses of the squads as well?

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Ratzki
Thanks guys for the info. So I see that for the armor, 3 out of a squad of 6 can be represented. I am imagining that the same will be said for infantry? Not only will we be able to set the units strengths of say 2 squads out of a platoon of 4 (for example), but we will be able to set the step losses of the squads as well?

No, I don't think you can reflect step losses.

Thanks
rick

[gijas17]

ORIGINAL: spellir74

Some elite arms are specifically trained for that sure but the rest get real antsy when separated from that 300-900+ of depth.

[A battlegroup is an ad hoc compiling of assets, arranged per mission specific goal, taken from the larger pool of assets inside the Div; usually only two per div, broken down into task forces and task groups. There were larger Battle Groups too.]

Thats how the Germans used Blitzkrieg especially with tanks. It worked in France surprisingly or they just got lucky but Russia was to large for the tactic to be effective and left their flanks highly exposed. Also it took days for the infantry and supply convoys to catch up to the tanks which delayed operations even further like the attack on Moscow. They didn't have highway systems in Russia like those in Germany.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: gijas

They didn't have highway systems in Russia like those in Germany.

That's one of the main reasons I think they lost the war in the east. Had their been a road net in Russia like there was in Western Europe the Russians would have in all likelihood lost the war.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Richie61]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: gijas

They didn't have highway systems in Russia like those in Germany.

That's one of the main reasons I think they lost the war in the east. Had their been a road net in Russia like there was in Western Europe the Russians would have in all likelihood lost the war.

Good Hunting.

MR

Yes, you are correct. I read a book about 15 years ago about a truck driver in the German army and he said they took 4 to 5 times longer to get supplies to the front. Lack of roads and lots of mud and snow added to it.

[Ratzki]

Any chances of us just getting the new map maker now so that we can at least play around with it while we wait for the game's release?

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

Any chances of us just getting the new map maker now so that we can at least play around with it while we wait for the game's release?

I'm not too sure that would be very easy to do. There are a number of linkages between game directorys and files and Map Maker. There are also some registry settings that might be problematic.

Thanks
rick

[HintJ]

ORIGINAL: Rick

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

Any chances of us just getting the new map maker now so that we can at least play around with it while we wait for the game's release?

I'm not too sure that would be very easy to do. There are a number of linkages between game directorys and files and Map Maker. There are also some registry settings that might be problematic.

Thanks
rick

This brings up an interesting thought:

When the demo is released, can PZC:K owners simply replace the .exe file in the Kharkov directory with the PCO demo exe and have all the new game features, albeit w/out the new PCO content?

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: HintJ

ORIGINAL: Rick

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

Any chances of us just getting the new map maker now so that we can at least play around with it while we wait for the game's release?

I'm not too sure that would be very easy to do. There are a number of linkages between game directorys and files and Map Maker. There are also some registry settings that might be problematic.

Thanks
rick

This brings up an interesting thought:

When the demo is released, can PZC:K owners simply replace the .exe file in the Kharkov directory with the PCO demo exe and have all the new game features, albeit w/out the new PCO content?

Nice idea, but nope, the changes that have been made to PCO permeate the entire file set.

Sorry
Rick

[Ratzki]

ORIGINAL: Rick

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

Any chances of us just getting the new map maker now so that we can at least play around with it while we wait for the game's release?

I'm not too sure that would be very easy to do. There are a number of linkages between game directorys and files and Map Maker. There are also some registry settings that might be problematic.

Thanks
rick

If you don't ask the answer is always no. I kinda figured that it would be a no go on the tech front.[:'(]

[gijas17]

I hope this doesn't turn out to be on the same schedule as the PCK patch... lol.

[DasTactic]

ORIGINAL: gijas

I hope this doesn't turn out to be on the same schedule as the PCK patch... lol.

Lol. I was thinking that myself. The ETA's for this game keep getting shuffled further and further backwards.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Das123

ORIGINAL: gijas

I hope this doesn't turn out to be on the same schedule as the PCK patch... lol.

Lol. I was thinking that myself. The ETA's for this game keep getting shuffled further and further backwards.

The last thing changed was adding the grass system. But as we have dozens of maps these all have to be updated. Then testing the map to see if this change affects things. I don't like going back and redoing maps. I like going forward. But it has to be done.

[lancer]

G'day,

Appreciate your efforts.

Take your time doing what has to be done as the grass makes a huge difference.

Cheers,
Lancer

[Mad Russian]

It completely changes the scenarios with infantry units in them as they now have a much reduced LOS to them if they go into cover. That's not all my maps but it's 2/3 of them and I need to add the new improved grass for the rest either way.

Good Hunting.

MR