Why is this forum so freaking dead?

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Skull

"The fact it has no random map generator was another one of the things that turned me off as just flipping the same map around by the corners doesn't do enough random changes to make the battles that much more random as far as terrain is concerned."

Actually, I think the absence of random maps will soon be somewhat lessened as we get more people making maps. The way it will work is that as new maps are made they can become part of a pool of maps for the random generator to use. With the work that Stridor has been doing in a mpa maker, I think you could gen up some maps pretty quickly if you arent looking for historical detail.

I also passed on Winter Storm , but bought into PC:K when it first came out. I've been a little disappointed that the forum seems to have quieted down, but then again, where I am it's summer and I know I've been out of town a lot.

But I'm anxous for the series to succeed. I also played CM, but now play this as a replacement -- I hope it's profitable enough for more games in the series, as I think its made huge gains going form just the first to the second.

Rick

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

There simply aren't enough buyers out there. The alternative is to produce a solid framework for gamers, and then let folks flesh it out as desired. IMHO, it's that or nothing. The CMAK/CMBB model, laudable as it may have been five or ten years ago, is dead. And if you want improvements to stuff like graphics or killing "borg-sighting," its absolutely essential that we consider alternatives such as PzC or CMSF. It's the only game in town, if you want things to move forward, in terms of both technology and gameplay.

Couldn't agree more. While CMBB set the gold standard, we'll never see anything like it again. Until I can create large maps, I'm not playing this game much at all, but plan to transition from CMBB once the series is a bit more fleshed out.

[Mraah]

RANDOM MAPS .....

Having random maps would be great ... but after all, how random are random maps?

Look at CM or Steel Panthers ...

CM - Can only generate a random map for a single battle. How many of us set everything to random? How many of us select the options to have hills, or a town, and how much woods for the map? What if you ran the same options 30 times over and compared the results ... Do they all look the same (basically). A road running from one end of the map to the other, a town somewhere on the map, woods spread out, hills the height you selected. Now, turn those maps 90 degrees or 180 degrees and compare them against each other ... how do they compare?

Steel Panthers - Over 10 years ago I dialed up to a BBS that some friends had to discuss steel panthers. We all agreed to a long campaign with the same settings. We didn't have fancy screen shots to show off our map so we had to describe it ...

Player 1 - "Had a meeting Engagement, road running east/west, hill in the middle, town on the west side, woods thick all around."
Player 2 - " Yeah, mine looked like that too!"

Sure, Pck didn't come with a random map generator ... but not having one really that much of a show stopper? From the sound of players feedback ... apparently so.
Hopefully Stridor's Map Maker program can resolve the issue. If we all build one map and uploaded it and combined all our work then how many more maps would we have ... over 100 new maps within one week?

How many of us are willing to help make maps and how many of us want to lurk in the background and be fed with a silver spoon ?

Please, take no offence to my post ... I'm with everyone when it comes to making changes and I understand and appreciate that we all have our reasons or preferences to what games we play and how much participation or contribution we make for our hobby.

I hope more gamers become interested in the Panzer command series ... It's the players that make a difference no matter how much the publisher gets involved.

Thank you,

Rob

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Mraah

...
Hopefully Stridor's Map Maker program can resolve the issue. If we all build one map and uploaded it and combined all our work then how many more maps would we have ... over 100 new maps within one week?

I hope more gamers become interested in the Panzer command series ... It's the players that make a difference no matter how much the publisher gets involved.
..
Rob

I agree. I've had some other commitments come up last couple of months, but I think I might be able to get back into this now. Plan to start working with Stridors MM .8b and see how it goes.

With Sridors tools, and some of the other mods coming, I actually feel like I've already gotten more from this game than what I expected.

Rick

[gunny]

ORIGINAL: benpark

The game grew with a pretty decent leap from the first iteration. It needs more of something to keep the momentum up, obviously. There have been a few bugs that still need to be fixed, so we will see what the upcoming patch will deliver in terms of final polish.

I'm a bit surprised more people aren't modding the game. It's a little daunting at first, but it's getting easier due to Stridor's amazing tools (Map Maker). A map maker as easy to use as CM's probably won't happen due to the game's architecture, but it's getting close enough to do a decent map in an hour (or less). As for the models- if you can make a box in Milkshape, you are well on your way to creating a building. Want to recreate a picture of a particular urban battle in PzC? It's possible.

Some things that the game needs for the next installment- better infantry rules, better visual appeal overall (map, models & anims) and good urban combat modeling. The devs shouldn't wait for putting in bigger maps, either. Do it for the next game, 2x2k and 4x4k would be good. It's sorely needed for tank fighting.

Throw the kitchen sink in, and then look at what people still want for the next game in the series, there will still be plenty to sell people on. By the game series two down the road, it will probably headed West any way-too big a task for the pool of modders we have now. If the current small group of 3d modelers making mods is any indication, they have no worries that they will be getting battles or fronts done before they will.

I've seen lots of decent wargames stall before they reached the promise of their potential. Interest in titles needs to be maintained for the good of the hard core as well as the prospective customers. Keep the interest level up- let people know what's in the pipeline, etc etc. I'm hoping the game continues to grow and flourish, but it's something that needs to be cultivated actively by both developer and fan base.

Hi Ben..... You can make a map in an hour you say? That's great. Considering some of the maps I'm modding in other games take a week or weeks to finish. You sold me. I have winter Storm but I think its time to get Karkhov.

[benpark]

Hey there, Gunny. Yeah- it takes a little getting used to at first, but it's pretty simple now that Stridor has made the map making tool.

The main thing is to put some thought into what the map will be trying to portray. Drawing out the underlying terrain and height map is the first step. After that, everything can be done from within the map maker. The scene editor that shipped with the game is good for making final adjustments. Buildings also still need to be coded from it, too. No more making the actual model of the map in a 3D program and all that.

Anyone that sets their mind to learning it (well almost anyone...) can have a decent map done in an hour once they get the hang of it. Complicate it (lots of buildings for example), and you are looking at a while longer-but still more than possible in an evening. If you obsess over them like I do, it can go on for days or weeks (but that's a sick version of fun for me).

As far as random maps go, yeah it wouldn't be a bad thing to have. I prefer historical representations of real battles, though-and don't really play MP. So for others it's more of an issue. My concerns are more with getting the general game play smoothed out and getting larger maps instituted sooner rather than later.

[benpark]

I HIGHLY suggest those interested in having more maps in the game check out the "Map Maker Beta" thread in the "Mods" section. It's interesting to see how something very complicated was streamlined through the space of a few months.

tm.asp?m=1832837

[PDiFolco]

Bleh, much too complicated, I don't want to have to be a 3D modeller to create maps !
To me the success of CM is above all the random maps and QBs, add to this completeness and ease of use of the Scenario Editor.
Put that in PzC, even with limited ToE (a little less limited than currently, but let's say East Front, Germany vs Russia, 41-43 for example), and the success would come, I bet.

[benpark]

You don't need to do any 3d modelling to make maps with the map maker. It does it for you. Make two graphic files, an AI map and a height map. Then all you need to set parameters, press some buttons and it's done.

CM is one of the best games ever made (CMBB being THE best). We live in it's shadow. My ATI card unfortunately does not enjoy taking me to CMBB's version of the Eastern Front, however (my laptop still will, but I can only take so much puny screen size). I thus am trying to make PzCommand a better game through modding the hell out of it. To each his own.

[Stridor]

Just to reiterate what Ben said, that latest map making tools (in open beta) require no 3D modelling experience. You can now make quite useable maps quickly (< 1hour) and the maps have an advantage over CM by being non-tiled, and at 1m ground resolution as well as being a more realistic representation of terrain.

The latest versions even include the ability to add custom labels and terrain grids to your maps (something which had been requested of PCK).

If you can use MS Paint then you can make a map in PCK.

[Titanwarrior89]

same here

ORIGINAL: Joram

To be honest I got this and it couldn't hold my attention.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

same here

ORIGINAL: Joram

To be honest I got this and it couldn't hold my attention.

And that's the same way that I reacted to ALL of the Combat Mission games. I had been playing Close Combat for several years before being introduced to CMBO, and I was absolutely appalled at how awful the infantry was handled in the newer game, as bad, IMO, as armour can appear in CC.

In retrospect, it's all about design. CC was designed from the ground, up, as an infantry game, hence the title. CM, conversely, with all it's devotion to effectively modeling a WW2 AFV chucking rounds down range, clearly suggests that the infantry (and for that matter, artillery) was an afterthought, shoehorned into the game, after BF had the whole "tank-thing" worked out.

Look at the detail that's applied to the modeling of armour in CMx, of individual AFV as a weapons system, the characteristics of which are the object of careful attempts at quantification. Contrast that with the handling of the squads and/or crews that inhabit the rest of the game, and it's obvious that non-armour is little more than an animated counter, barely more sophisticated in it's data-model than the infantry depicted in Avalon Hill's old Tobruk wargame, and just as much a hand-maiden to the true focus of the game, TANKS.

I'd be remiss were I not to state that PzC suffers from the same shortcoming. But, armour carries a lot of weight with wargamers (pun intended), and the developer erred on the side of convention, "give the barbarians what they want." It's worth noting that much of the controversy surrounding games like CMSF and/or Theatres of War is derived from a developer having attempted to effectively deal with both infantry and armour in the same game, an apparently thankless chore that some would suggest went unfilled in both instances.

As of this moment, I have some choices as a gamer. If I want to play a WW2 infantry game, I will play one of the CC games. If I want to play an armour game, I'll play CM or PzC. But, I'll writhe about at each bend in the scenario selection process if someone (an opponent, typically a close friend) attempts to cram too much armour into CC, or too much infantry into the WEGO games. As to CMSF and Theatre of War, I genuinely appreciate both for their promise, but as am yet on the fence as to whether or not there's a future (or an audience) for such hybrids.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Biffa]

A good case in point is the amazing fun that I remember having with Close Combat: A Bridge Too Far. Crawling through wrecked buildings trying to get behind a panzer with my last Piat remains one of my fondest memories of any similiar game.

Sure there's a buzz blowing stuff from miles away with a Tiger, but it soon becomes pretty mindless and repetitive but using infantry in a skillful way remains far more of a rewarding challenge imho. Wouldn't anybody prefer to be the David and win rather than the Goliath? The whole experience is far more entertaining and challenging.

One thought I do have is that maybe there aren't enough infantry friendly maps in PCK. I'm thinking about how much more of an armourfest CC3 was than CC2 and this was largely due to terrain and ofc the fact that only part of CC2 involved the Allies having tanks. It made players think and didn't depend on the 'big guns'.

I honestly think that if we (Map Makers out there) started making maps a lot busier regards bushes/fences/map elevations etc we could then redress the balance. Infantry animations would help a bit too especially in close combat. Too many maps at the moment are basically almost clear shooting galleries and this doesn't help. We need map makers or aspiring map makers who actually have an understanding of infantry tactics to try their hands at using the MM and bring the infantry element to life.

Reminds me of a great book called Erwin Rommel Infantry Attacks, it simply served to illustrate the exhausting and exciting role of a combat infantryman, I'd love to see more of this in the game.

[Ron]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl


And that's the same way that I reacted to ALL of the Combat Mission games. I had been playing Close Combat for several years before being introduced to CMBO, and I was absolutely appalled at how awful the infantry was handled in the newer game, as bad, IMO, as armour can appear in CC.

In retrospect, it's all about design. CC was designed from the ground, up, as an infantry game, hence the title. CM, conversely, with all it's devotion to effectively modeling a WW2 AFV chucking rounds down range, clearly suggests that the infantry (and for that matter, artillery) was an afterthought, shoehorned into the game, after BF had the whole "tank-thing" worked out.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

Not sure what your feelings towards CM have to do with PCK here, however from your comments re infantry in CM one can only conclude your prejudice and lack of true information. All the best.

[JMass]

Just to remember the name of this game is Panzer Command: Kharkov and really I don't care about infantry games.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Ron

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl


And that's the same way that I reacted to ALL of the Combat Mission games. I had been playing Close Combat for several years before being introduced to CMBO, and I was absolutely appalled at how awful the infantry was handled in the newer game, as bad, IMO, as armour can appear in CC.

In retrospect, it's all about design. CC was designed from the ground, up, as an infantry game, hence the title. CM, conversely, with all it's devotion to effectively modeling a WW2 AFV chucking rounds down range, clearly suggests that the infantry (and for that matter, artillery) was an afterthought, shoehorned into the game, after BF had the whole "tank-thing" worked out.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

Not sure what your feelings towards CM have to do with PCK here, however from your comments re infantry in CM one can only conclude your prejudice and lack of true information. All the best.

Interesting. Can I conclude from your comments that you "feel" that I'm equally prejudiced toward Close Combat because I state that it's not a particularly good armour game? Am I'm prejudiced against against CMSF because I suggest that it's only partially successful in its attempt to deal with armour and infantry in a balanced fashion? Are you concerned at all about my apparent prejudice regarding PzC? Or am I only prejudiced against YOUR game?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: JMass
Just to remember the name of this game is Panzer Command: Kharkov and really I don't care about infantry games.

Quite right. It is not named Infantry Commander.

Instead of having a head count every turn, the game tries to simulate squad effectiveness using steps, morale and cohesiveness states.

Every infantry centric game I've ever seen has had to neuter armor to keep the focus on the infantry.

[Biffa]

Each to his own tastes but&nbsp;I do think PoE does have a point though maybe implying that PzC had been build with little innovation and to a formula to appeal to 'Barbarians' is&nbsp;stepping over the mark and quite unfair.
&nbsp;
Maybe it's the way I'm playing the game but&nbsp;it has certainly shaped the way I&nbsp;tackle the games&nbsp;challenges, infantry for me are disposable scouts for armour, especially, as I mentioned above with the vanilla map designs.

[invernomuto]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: JMass
Just to remember the name of this game is Panzer Command: Kharkov and really I don't care about infantry games.

Quite right. It is not named Infantry Commander.

Instead of having a head count every turn, the game tries to simulate squad effectiveness using steps, morale and cohesiveness states.

Every infantry centric game I've ever seen has had to neuter armor to keep the focus on the infantry.

IMHO the infantry model in PCK needs:
1) Fatigue traking: like someone said on this board, it's quite unrealistic to rush 1 km without penalities. A simple way to track fatigue like in JTCS: if a squad rushed the previous turn it is fatigued and could only move at slow rate.
2) More (and better) animations. Animations are too "simple". Tanks are great but when soldiers start moving the "magic" of the game fades away.
3) Better tactical IA during turn resolution. Inf squads should react better to the events that may occur in turn resolution (eg a MG starts firing on your squad).

Overall I think that PCK is a great game. Very fun. Compared to Winterstorm, it's definitely better (expecially infantry!).
My PBEM turns last less than 10 minutes (600 vs 600 points scenarios) and micromanagement is minimal. I get used to platoon based orders and I think that the system work good in most situations.

My 2 cents.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: SAF_Biffa

Each to his own tastes but I do think PoE does have a point though maybe implying that PzC had been build with little innovation and to a formula to appeal to 'Barbarians' is stepping over the mark and quite unfair.

Thirty-something years ago, a cover-story in the Avalon Hill General ran with the title "What's in a Tank?" The gist of the article was that games which focused on tracked-AFV outsold those that didn't. The author went on to muse about the possibilities as to why, but the numbers seemed pretty indisputable. PanzerBlitz was their biggest seller at the time, BTW. My reference to barbarians was made with the rhetorical license that I frequently extend to myself. No harm was intended. It seemed so obtusely ironic, (as I'm a card-carrying member) that I felt no emoticon was needed.

Maybe it's the way I'm playing the game but it has certainly shaped the way I tackle the games challenges, infantry for me are disposable scouts for armour, especially, as I mentioned above with the vanilla map designs.

Armour is so strong relative to infantry in a data-driven game that a designer has to BEGIN his work by engineering the game in such a way as to make the older arm of combat relevant. For instance, he can employ a smaller map scale which will serve to dilute the superiority that armour frequently enjoys in speed, range and sheer lethality. If infantry can maneuver and engage at close-range, relatively quickly, the strengths of armour are far less pronounced. This is the route that Close Combat takes, BTW, one which allows for tremendously detailed little firefights, even if there's a heavy-gunned tank or two about. Take that same game and push the TOE up to fifty-percent AFV, and the grunts are barely more survivable than what you'd find in a game that uses a larger map scale like CM or PzC. But, let's look at what BF/Steve had to say about it, QFT:

posted January 30, 2005 08:48 PM

The 3D environment of CM does offer us some challenges in terms of where to draw the line between a simulation of the individual soldier and larger groups of soldiers (i.e. units). It's something we've all be struggling with since the early days of CMBO's design.

Back in the old days of wargaming you'd have a cardboard chit with some numbers and a shape on it. Nobody called for more than that simply because the system was so abstract probably nobody thought of it (at least not thinking it possibly practical).

The first couple of generations of computerized wargames fell into the same category. As time went on and technology improved wargamers wanted better looking maps, more attractive looking units, and of course more under the hood. But again, for anything but the smallest scale wargames nobody thought about simulating the individual soldier to any significant degree. Until, that is, Close Combat came out.

CC was the first commercial wargame to model the individual soldier in detail and in substantial numbers. And for all its flaws, the game worked very well and people saw the value in having the 1:1 soldier simulation. Then CMBO came around...

Our problem, from the beginning, is our chosen scale. MUCH larger than CC's, yet not so much that individuals ceased to matter. But due to technical limiations we never once thought about doing 1:1 because it simply wasn't possible. However, the desire has always been there, at least to some extent. Now comes CMx2...

What we are doing now is giving the individual soldier a place on a larger scale battlefield (larger than FPS, CC, etc). That is the right thing to do. However, there are limits. We must make sure to not lose sight of the fact that this is a larger scale wargame and not a FPS of even Close Combat scale game. Therefore, when push comes to shove, decisions are made which favor the larger scale wargaming environment. Clutter, unnecessary development distractions, big hits to the CPU for little simulation gain, etc. are all bad things for CMx2.

In short... we know what CMx2 is supposed to be and what it isn't. We have this vision very clearly laid out and will not waiver from it. There will be no mission creep.

Steve"

Honestly, it really sounds as though he's suggesting that infantry combat in CC is more detailed than that found in CMx1, and much of this is owed to the former's smaller scale, as opposed to the scale employed in his game, one that was obviously adopted to showcase the mobility, range and lethality of AFV. I've tried to explain this before, hereabouts. Most folks seem to get it. [:)]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)