PzcK vs CMBB

[thewood1]

OK, but I only see a way to attach images.  It will only let me attch a jpg or txt file.

[rickier65]

Thanks for the replay, it was interesting to see how they played out.

I played a fair bit of CMBB, but let it slide a while back. Now I"m enjoying PCK. There are a few thing I didn't like about CMBB, but thats true about most games. And I know that PC:K has already addressed two of the things I didn't like about CMBB - the Campaign capability and the Infantry soldier images. I havent played enough PC:K to know how it will handle the third.

But in any event - I enjoyed CMBB, and I'm now enjoying PC:K, and whenever I see a post where Erik mentions what they'd like to add in next release - well I can only hope PC:K is successful enough to make sure we get another release -- because it sound to me like the series is only getting better.

So thanks for the replay Wood!

Rick

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
OK, but I only see a way to attach images.  It will only let me attch a jpg or txt file.

Ah, sorry - please try posting them in the Mods sub-forum.

[thewood1]

Done

[Stridor]

Thank you thewood for doing this.

Q. Which one did you have more fun playing?

It would be even better if we had some historical battle of appropriate scale and with accurate historical evidence so we could compare both to the harshest & fairest critic of all, reality.

I am sure that CM with its long and illustrious history as already had that comparison at some point.

[madorosh]

Excellent comparison, thewood...was tempted to try something like this myself. Always cool to see the same map done in two different game formats.

[thewood1]

I actually had more fun with CMBB, mainly because of the lopsided nature of the engagement.  Once the SU76s were gone, it was basically over except some minor skirmishes that occurred because I was rushing to get the scenario done.
 
Frankly, the platoon orders continue to annoy me.  Its not that I don't mind the concept, but I have to constantly make adjustments to orders.  Part of that is that the hot keys aren't second nature yet, but getting a platoon into a non-linear tree line is a click fest unless I want squads hanging out of cover.  This is what makes it artificial feelin.  If I could detach, with penalties, I would find it much more believable.
 
I have decided to replay PCK as both german and soviet.  That should give a clue as to whether the AI can't handle it or the battle was just plain lopsided.
 
The turns also played faster in PCK because the better tools for situational awareness meant I didn't have run through the turn ten times to see what happened.

[thewood1]

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh

Excellent comparison, thewood...was tempted to try something like this myself. Always cool to see the same map done in two different game formats.

Hey, why aren't you at the annex defending all that is good.

[76mm]

Wood,

Thanks a lot for the AAR, very interesting. I've bought this game but haven't played it yet, too busy. I'd like to set up side-by-side scenarios as well but won't have a chance for a while.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Frankly, the platoon orders continue to annoy me.  Its not that I don't mind the concept, but I have to constantly make adjustments to orders.  Part of that is that the hot keys aren't second nature yet, but getting a platoon into a non-linear tree line is a click fest unless I want squads hanging out of cover.  This is what makes it artificial feelin.  If I could detach, with penalties, I would find it much more believable.

Hm - the worst case scenario with platoon orders is that you have to click once to move each squad to exactly where you want. Isn't this effectively the same as in CM where you're ordering individual squads?

[Stridor]

Agree, at best case there is just one order for a platoon of squad size X, at worst case there is X orders.

So the total order count (C) per platoon of squad size X becomes 1 <= C <= X
For CM is not C = X?

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Frankly, the platoon orders continue to annoy me.  Its not that I don't mind the concept, but I have to constantly make adjustments to orders.  Part of that is that the hot keys aren't second nature yet, but getting a platoon into a non-linear tree line is a click fest unless I want squads hanging out of cover.  This is what makes it artificial feelin.  If I could detach, with penalties, I would find it much more believable.

Hm - the worst case scenario with platoon orders is that you have to click once to move each squad to exactly where you want. Isn't this effectively the same as in CM where you're ordering individual squads?

I think the more I play with PC:K the more I appreciate the Platoon Order model. I'm not sure I totally agree with what orders are allowed, or that you have all the orders, but I think I like the approach. And as I play more I find myself actually giving fewer orders than I did in CMBB, I think. Mainly minor adjusments to alignment, like as wood says, lining up in woods line. Sometimes targeting if I have a specific need.

Rick

[thewood1]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Frankly, the platoon orders continue to annoy me.  Its not that I don't mind the concept, but I have to constantly make adjustments to orders.  Part of that is that the hot keys aren't second nature yet, but getting a platoon into a non-linear tree line is a click fest unless I want squads hanging out of cover.  This is what makes it artificial feelin.  If I could detach, with penalties, I would find it much more believable.

Hm - the worst case scenario with platoon orders is that you have to click once to move each squad to exactly where you want. Isn't this effectively the same as in CM where you're ordering individual squads?

Yeah, you're right. I thought about it after you said that. I can't put my finger on it. It just seems to me to a little overly complicated.

[PDiFolco]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Frankly, the platoon orders continue to annoy me.  Its not that I don't mind the concept, but I have to constantly make adjustments to orders.  Part of that is that the hot keys aren't second nature yet, but getting a platoon into a non-linear tree line is a click fest unless I want squads hanging out of cover.  This is what makes it artificial feelin.  If I could detach, with penalties, I would find it much more believable.

Hm - the worst case scenario with platoon orders is that you have to click once to move each squad to exactly where you want. Isn't this effectively the same as in CM where you're ordering individual squads?

Not really it seems, because the possible order list for each squad depends on the HQ orders : I didn't find a way to make a squad "run" if the HQ doesn't. Then the HQ must "run in place" to a spot 1 m away, losing ability to fire.
That's a tad weird, or did I miss stg ?

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco
Not really it seems, because the possible order list for each squad depends on the HQ orders : I didn't find a way to make a squad "run" if the HQ doesn't. Then the HQ must "run in place" to a spot 1 m away, losing ability to fire.
That's a tad weird, or did I miss stg ?

You're still only issuing one order per squad if you micromanage, which is no worse than CM.

As far as Rushing, that's right - specialized orders like that are for the whole platoon, which is why you don't use them in cases where part or most of the platoon actually needs to remain stationary. For those situations, you use orders like Engage or Defend and use the move sub-order for the one squad that has to be mobile.

Regards,

- Erik

[thewood1]

Actually it was a situation where the HQ had fallen behind the other units to engage something in LOS.  To get him to keep up, I had to issue a platoon order and then tell the other to only move 1 m.  That was a lot more work than in CM.  There are quite a few times where you need one unit to move a little to get LOS to an enemy that the rest of the platoon is engaging.  Certain orders don't allow an adjustment to a single unit, especially an HQ unit.  I had this happen a few times in my test scenarios.

In the end, the platoon order concept is a good one that forces some real world planning. But without the flexibility for some units, especially single AFVs with radios and support units, to detach and reattach, it does come across as an artificial mechanism.

In my mind, some combination of PCK's platoon orders and CMBBs command delays taht are based on unit experience and leadership skills would be the best.

[PDiFolco]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco
Not really it seems, because the possible order list for each squad depends on the HQ orders : I didn't find a way to make a squad "run" if the HQ doesn't. Then the HQ must "run in place" to a spot 1 m away, losing ability to fire.
That's a tad weird, or did I miss stg ?

You're still only issuing one order per squad if you micromanage, which is no worse than CM.

As far as Rushing, that's right - specialized orders like that are for the whole platoon, which is why you don't use them in cases where part or most of the platoon actually needs to remain stationary. For those situations, you use orders like Engage or Defend and use the move sub-order for the one squad that has to be mobile.

Regards,

- Erik

Not to be nitpicky, but it makes mot much sense in some cases, such as running to cover when 1 squad is caught in the open y enemy fire. The guys should be able to run on their own or when told so, not because they see their CO do the same !

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Actually it was a situation where the HQ had fallen behind the other units to engage something in LOS.  To get him to keep up, I had to issue a platoon order and then tell the other to only move 1 m.

Why not just use Engage -> Move and Engage -> Hold?

That was a lot more work than in CM.  There are quite a few times where you need one unit to move a little to get LOS to an enemy that the rest of the platoon is engaging.  Certain orders don't allow an adjustment to a single unit, especially an HQ unit.  I had this happen a few times in my test scenarios.

That's ideally what Engage -> Move and Defend -> Move are intended for. I understand your point now though - if you're adjusting the HQ unit and its orders propagate, then you can find a situation where the number of orders required would be higher. That's not all that oommon though and I think the cases where you can just issue a platoon order without micro-adjustment evens that out.

[thewood1]

My other question is how can you not micrmanage?&nbsp; As you move forward, you should have your units in or close to cover.&nbsp; You will always have to adjust your individual squads and units to account for that.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco
Not to be nitpicky, but it makes mot much sense in some cases, such as running to cover when 1 squad is caught in the open y enemy fire. The guys should be able to run on their own or when told so, not because they see their CO do the same !

Not to be nitpicky, but how did they get caught in the open far enough from cover that they need to Rush when the rest of the platoon from your description is already set in place? If platoon cohesion is maintained, this should rarely ever be an issue.