Panzer Command: Ostfront is the latest in a new series of 3D turn-based tactical wargames which include single battles, multi-battle operations and full war campaigns with realistic units, tactics and terrain and an informative and practical interface. Including a full Map Editor, 60+ Scenarios, 10 Campaigns and a very long list of improvements, this is the ultimate Panzer Command release for the Eastern Front!
Yeah, but I assume they both get paid. The way businesses work is if someone is doing something you don't need. get rid of him and hire soemone to do something useful. Steve stated several times the individual soldier animations were the biggest bottleneck next to programming and one guy had been doing that almost full time. And the animations still aren't quite right. Can that guy, abstract the squads, voila, hire another programmer to actually fix things.
What if CMBN just had a switch where the game played the old way where you moved and sighted with squads instead of individuals? PCO took some wants of CM players into consideration and has a way to run under 60 second turns.
My own clarification...I rarely pay attention to the animations. If you want cool animations of modern warfare, play ArmA 2. It is awesome watching T72s rolling across a field firing away or a squad sprinting down a road engaging another squad. But knowing that the tank's protection is based on hit points does kind of ruin it.
I like CMSF for what it is...a game of modern tactical combat. I don't like some aspects of it, namely, it kind of stole the Combat Mission name without being CM. It is similar to CM, but PC is closer. It is also not finished and according to BFC, won't be.
There was a lot of discussion about what would happen to CMx1 when BFC decided to stop the series. There was discussion in all directions about open codes and buyers for the code. While BFC doesn't have much good to say about the CMx1 series today it built them a customer base that almost solely bought into CMx2 on name recognition. Hence, the reason that the CMx1 series was kept, so they could use the name.
Which all makes sense. Just because the CMx2 series doesn't play like the CMx1 series is okay. If the game had been a smash hit few people would be upset. They really only got upset at the state of the release. I'm sure the state of the release was totally in BFC's control.
What is becoming more and more evident is that CMx2 and the PC series are radically different games.
For me personally, going to a 1:1 modeling means a lot of things. Personal things. Things the soldiers personally do. Each soldier. Just like 1:1 says. Each one. When you go down that path that's what I expect. I don't think you can do it realistically for more than a platoon. I also think that real time is the way that it needs to be done. I read about how a lot of aspects are abstracted for the model. That defeats the purpose for me.
But, there are lots of reasons to play games. The "realism" factor is only one of them. The "fun" factor is also a big draw.
When you consider all the work that went into the game with the low budget staff I'd say they've done amazing things. Is it there as a 1:1 representation, each of us has to decide that for themselves. I've not been associated with CMSF for a very long time. For me personally, it went in the wrong direction. It's beginning to come back to where I would have liked to see it, but it has a ways to go yet.
Good Hunting.
MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.
Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
The more that CMx2 slips into real-time and 1:1 representation, the smaller the battles MUST be in order for the player to be able to control his units. I am not interested in a platoon-company based game as I am in a company-battalion size game. The thing about the old CMx1 is that you could find a level at which you liked to play and go at it, often with several others interested in playing at the same level as you liked. Yes, even CMx1 got worse for command and control as people pushed into the battalion-regimental ability of the game, this was due to the way the game managed Command & Control and the orders menus. But the thing is, you had the control to play where you liked to play. I think that CMx2 will force players into that company plus a platoon of tanks size. PC is not going that route, which is great for me. I again see a game that I get to choose the level at which I want to play. You want a platoon and a couple tanks per side, then go ahead, but with the 2kmx2km map size, you should be able to approach the 2+ battalions without it becoming a chore to control. Due to the amount of abstraction and the way that PC handles C&C, and the orders menus, I have never felt the burden of larger formations like I do when playing CMx1.
Any game will have some level of abstraction built into it, no matter what the scale.
While it's true that soldiers in a squad would communicate, and change plans according to the situation as they saw it, so would squads in a platoon. And platoons in a company, etc.
The point is that if you can live with generalizations on a platoon-level, surely generalizations on a squad-level are no different.
CMx1 had 20m tiles IIRC, and everybody was okay with it meaning a squad was *somewhere* within that square.
Now they've moved to 1m tiles, which occasionally means you get soldiers milling about the odd obstacles, but in reality it's no different from the earlier system, they're simply showing you where the individual soldiers are instead of abstracting it.
So calling it a 1:1 system is a bit of a misnomer, since you're not moving soldiers but squads (or occasionally teams).
So why do it in the first place?
Well, to me at least, it looks way cool. [:)]
Granted, there's the odd hiccup every now and then, but the over-all graphics are much improved.
For those amongst you who play miniature wargames (gotta be more than me) it's the difference between Cold War Commander (using platoon-bases) and Ambush Alley (using ind. soldiers, but moving them as a team).
While the mechanics may be the same, and the results are compatible I much prefer one over the other.
Then there's the argument that the game comes before the graphics.
Which is true, to a point. But there are a few disclaimers.
First, I don't agree with the notion that having one guy working on animation means having one guy less to fix the AI. It assumes there's something for the guy to fix in the first place.
Second, while I agree that a game should *be* good first, and *look* good second, I also believe that given a choice between two equally good games, I'd take the good-looking one.
Given the chance to crush, kill and dismember my foe (AKA good times), I'd prefer to do it in HD with surround-sound.
Why should eye-candy be limited to FPS?
Even games such as the Silent Hunter series has improved the graphics exponentially and let's face it, when it comes to simulations, sub-sims are about as hard-core as they get. [:D]
"Something is always wrong, Baldrick. The fact that I'm not a millionaire aristocrat with the sexual capacity of a rutting rhino is a constant niggle"
- Edmund Blackadder
1 : 1 probably doesn’t work the way you think it would. Say you want relative spotting and not borg spotting. Every pair of eyeballs is spotting for the over-mind when a unit is not selected. This is similar to PCO non-selected spotting but less abstract. Instead of sighting with the combined effort of a squad every man even those on the periphery of a squad around a corner or spinning about can relay his view of the battlefield to the general. Any man that gets suppressed and ducks down will lose sight of anything he sights. Thus in combat enemy units are continuously blinking in and out of sight as different men of yours are suppressed and the sight from them is lost. Are the enemy dead, driven to ground, suppressed, hiding in the grass or did your man spotting them just lose sight for some reason?
Then there’s the firing. No longer are space/area targets like the center of a squad chosen. No, individual men now are the singular target of MG42s, rifle grenades or even tank cannons. You will see tanks aim and fire at individual men.
BFC has already stated they had to fudge the HE effect and dispersion of light arms to compensate for cramming too many men into too too small an area. That is one of the biggest drawbacks in the 1:1 the way BFC does it. The other is that because of the differences in LOS and LOF your sqaud sometimes can't fire on units that can fire on individual soldiers in your squad. The are other issues glossed over in the 1:1 discussion.
Anyone who has been with CMSF from the start has seen them improve with various fudging of the 1:1, but they still exist.
i don't know about anyone else here but i want a FUN warGAME. authenticity and "realism" has its limits. at the point that "realistic" ballistic calculations, one-one scale and battlefield chaos makes the experience NOT FUN, is the point that i lose all interest. that is not something i am interested in.
I'm long time lurker and fan of old wargames: Steel Panthers, CMBO, CMBB.
I'm looking forward to new Panzer Command, hope its gonna be good and will replace my outdated Steel Panthers?
I like the fact that you resigned from having 1to1 representation in your game. Sometimes the less is more .
Meanwhile lets look at "amazing" soldiers AI in Combat Mission :Battlefront Normandy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUlEFUYz2TU#t=38m43s
German soldiers struggling with the monster obstacle: THE WOODEN FENCE. Reminds me GI Combat [8|] .
I don't think that particular video is "proof" that 1:1 is a bad idea. It is, however, proof that BF still hasn't totally gotten it right yet. Nonetheless, I still salute them for the attempt. I expect CMN to be basically a WW2 mod of CMSF. Current versions of CMSF are very good, IMO, and much better than the initial release of CMx2. Anyone that dismisses BF just because they are still angry w/them is missing out on a quality game.
I'm not too good at RT, but I have developed a RT playing style (w/extreme liberal use of pausing) that lets me enjoy the minutia of CMx2. There's tons of details in that game. If I had limited resources and HAD to choose between CMN and PCO, I'd pick PCO, mainly because I like PCO's openness over CMx2. In that sense, PCO is more like SP.
Abstractions, 1:1, whatever. . . a good game is a good game, and I don't think comparing CMN w/PCO is appropriate, although I understand why people do it over and over and over . . .
comparing a CMN to GI Combat is pure hyperbole.
"Tactics is knowing what to do when there is something to do. Strategy is knowing what to do when there is nothing to do."
- Savielly Tartakower
In Panzer Command, infantry is represented as squads and teams. We don't model down to the individual man, even though you can display every man in the squad or team the losses are taken as steps. We do model every weapon in the squad and all the realistic elements of infantry combat and tactics are present.
In Panzer Command, infantry is represented as squads and teams. We don't model down to the individual man, even though you can display every man in the squad or team the losses are taken as steps. We do model every weapon in the squad and all the realistic elements of infantry combat and tactics are present.
hi Eric,
do you have plans to go to the 1:1 infantry in the next pc offering? you have buildings, trees, grass, rivers and vehicles that are 1:1, why not infantry. it could be that the pc engine was not design for this but I think Matrix needs to offer a game that has this type of infantry configuration.
IMO 1:1 is ok for squad games like Team Assault or first person shooters. It doesn't add to gameplay or ease of use for games modeling companies and battalions. It causes problems with entering buildings and mounting tanks, etc.
Conflict of Heroes "Most games are like checkers or chess and some have dice and cards involved too. This game plays like checkers but you think like chess and the dice and cards can change everything in real time."
In Panzer Command, infantry is represented as squads and teams. We don't model down to the individual man, even though you can display every man in the squad or team the losses are taken as steps. We do model every weapon in the squad and all the realistic elements of infantry combat and tactics are present.
hi Eric,
do you have plans to go to the 1:1 infantry in the next pc offering? you have buildings, trees, grass, rivers and vehicles that are 1:1, why not infantry. it could be that the pc engine was not design for this but I think Matrix needs to offer a game that has this type of infantry configuration.
IIRC, there is a game soon to be released that already does 1:1 modeling for the infantry.
Actually what you have in PC is platoon modeling. There are individual squads in the game because they make up a platoon. There are individual soldiers weapons in the game because they contribute to that squads firepower.
There are individual tanks in the game because they make up a platoon. There are individual buildings, trees, etc in the game because they effect LOS, combat or both.
Good Hunting.
MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.
Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
In Panzer Command, infantry is represented as squads and teams. We don't model down to the individual man, even though you can display every man in the squad or team the losses are taken as steps. We do model every weapon in the squad and all the realistic elements of infantry combat and tactics are present.
hi Eric,
.......I think Matrix needs to offer a game that has this type of infantry configuration.
Check out the Close Combat series here. While they aren't 3D, they do offer some pretty realistic looking maps. Reading the threads for these might give you enough information to know if thats what you're looking for.
i see, thanks. when playing the game, I should then not worry about cover each individual squad? is this abstacted in the game?
For individual squads, each squad can be ordered independently, so you do want to use cover for each indivual squad if you can. Individual soldiers within a squad cannot be issued orders. For example, it's common for one squad to seek cover in a building to provide cover fire for other squads in a platoon that are moving up. or one squad to lay smoke (at least for the germans) while the other squads in the platoon move forward.
ORIGINAL: general_solomon
i see, thanks. when playing the game, I should then not worry about cover each individual squad? is this abstacted in the game?
No. Worry about the squad. It is the basic element of the game. What MR was referring to is the orders are first given to the platoon. The squads follow the platoon order unless it is selected and given its own version of that order.
If an individual soldier of a squad is outside of a shrubbery but the center of the squad is behind the shrubbery the entire squad is considered in shrubbery including the one soldier.
.
