Matrix Games Forums

You would have to keep the upper command levels simple so as to not bog down the game play. Or you could have the Co. Commanders only able to give/change orders every so many turns based on Commander experience/skill.

Those command level suggestions are interesting. though it would seem that it would restrict a players freedom to direct individual units even more than the current order system. Most of the player feedback i've seen here seems to want to lean in the other direction.

thanks
Rick

ORIGINAL: Rick


Those command level suggestions are interesting. though it would seem that it would restrict a players freedom to direct individual units even more than the current order system. Most of the player feedback i've seen here seems to want to lean in the other direction.

thanks
Rick

It would restrict player's freedom but would be more realistic. A player option would solve any problem.

I can't think of a single PC wargame, or even many board wargames, that provide anything like a realistic approximation of WW2 C&C.

For the most part, a player has a god-like control over all of their forces, irrespective of whether units in that force are in C&C or not. While that may (or may not depending on your PoV) make for a better 'game', it simply does not reflect the reality of the battlefield.

Where exactly are the enemy and, even when found, what is their composition; why is A Company not advancing; where is B Company; why has the artillery barrage not started; why can't we contact Brigade or Division for reinforcements? When have we experienced all of those questions in a game? Almost never and yet those would be common problems in WW2.

It's odd that people will carp on about realism in wargames - this value is wrong, that ammo couldn't do that, the armour is wrong etc etc but seem not to want to have the fundamentals of WW2 battles present in their games.

If a platoon is not in command control how can you give it orders and, equally important, how can you know what it is seeing and doing. Send a runner or get the Company CO over to it to find out. Until then you have no control over it and it will be controlled by the AI .

Probably all pie in the sky but until we get C&C accurate, wargames will remain primarily 'games' rather than realistic simulations.

ORIGINAL: James Crowley
I can't think of a single PC wargame, or even many board wargames, that provide anything like a realistic approximation of WW2 C&C.

For the most part, a player has a god-like control over all of their forces, irrespective of whether units in that force are in C&C or not. While that may (or may not depending on your PoV) make for a better 'game', it simply does not reflect the reality of the battlefield.

Well, is realistic like a light switch, it's either on or off? Either 100% realistic or it is 0% realistic? Or, possibly could a game setting be a little more realistic than another setting? If that then we can talk about things that make it more realistic.

I know it's been said before, but it would be great if the next game in this series, made more. use of the graphics card. I have no probs with the game play, it's great. but if the graphics were a bit more, Theatre of War / Faces of War. I would be very happy.

ORIGINAL: James Crowley

If a platoon is not in command control how can you give it orders and, equally important, how can you know what it is seeing and doing. Send a runner or get the Company CO over to it to find out. Until then you have no control over it and it will be controlled by the AI .

Probably all pie in the sky but until we get C&C accurate, wargames will remain primarily 'games' rather than realistic simulations.

How often do you figure that a squad or platoon would find itself out side of a command radius during a firefight? I would imagine it would depend on what is being shot at it(small arms fire, HE) and what type of terrain it found itself in.
Would it be more realistic to just not let any unit willingly move out of command?

Simple enough to do. Fill out the unit rosters for the leaders and then give them command radius.

A company commander can only affect his company. If he's killed he's replaced by one of the officers from the same company and that officer gets a replacement leader from a random replacement pool.

The player is still a God Leader, but the others would have to play more realistically. They couldn't just run around the battlefield yelling "FIRE", "RALLY" or "RUN" to any and all soldiers near them.

A command structure using command radius isn't that hard to do. It's even been done in board wargames...<Gasp>....

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The player is still a God Leader, but the others would have to play more realistically. They couldn't just run around the battlefield yelling "FIRE", "RALLY" or "RUN" to any and all soldiers near them.

[:D][:D][:D]

Yes, a visual command radius could have a toggle button. The command radius would be influenced by several factors like terrain, commander's skill, radios, ect. The Company commander would have to keep his subordinate commanders in command and they would in turn have to keep their units within thier command radius. If a unit finds itself out of command, limit the orders options to a form of movement only untill it is back in command again.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Simple enough to do. Fill out the unit rosters for the leaders and then give them command radius.

A company commander can only affect his company. If he's killed he's replaced by one of the officers from the same company and that officer gets a replacement leader from a random replacement pool.

How would you fill them out? Are we talking just more step losses, or for the leaders would it be more information on the skills ect. that the leader and each of his subordinates would have?

I've just had a look at Operation Star, on You Tube. The graphics on that look good, so can the next Panzer Command game have graphics like that ?

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Simple enough to do. Fill out the unit rosters for the leaders and then give them command radius.

A company commander can only affect his company. If he's killed he's replaced by one of the officers from the same company and that officer gets a replacement leader from a random replacement pool.

How would you fill them out? Are we talking just more step losses, or for the leaders would it be more information on the skills ect. that the leader and each of his subordinates would have?

Tactical games should have leaders. I would add the leaders to the game. Give them individual ratings. Fill out the Command Roster with them and add them to the game.

But that's not my call.

Good Hunting.

MR

Sounds like a plan MR, can't you use some of your pull to get that done?[;)] I like the idea of keeping things abstract somewhat, but leaders would help as well as sqauds showing manpower on screen. No need to do one to one as far as gameplay goes, but it would be great to see squads with the correct number of soldiers on screen and as they take step losses to represent them with subtracting from the squads on screen men.

PanzerBri, I do not know how much computing power it would take to come up with graphics like those you mentioned. It would be pretty, that's for sure.

Thanks for that Ratzki. I think most people have good machines these days. If the next game, in the PC series worked my machine too much. I would get an upgrade, that's how much I like these games.

What makes PC great is the armour combat. Why?... because it is all fleshed out and therefore it feels right. It is able to draw you in to the action, that immersion that was mentioned earlier is present. Maybe the infantry combat model is good already, but it seems to stumble a bit when transferring the action that is happening behind the scene to the images that we see on the screen. I feel that it is a lack of information made ready to the player during combat is what prevents me from this immersion during infantry combat. To go along with what MR has said, leaders and squads should be fleshed out, we as the players should be able to tell what is going on during combat without having to click on units and take us out of the illusion of being there.

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

Sounds like a plan MR, can't you use some of your pull to get that done?[;)]

You can take my pull and $5 and get a cup of coffee anywhere in town.

The ones you want to talk to are Rick and Erik. They are the decision makers on this game series.


Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

Sounds like a plan MR, can't you use some of your pull to get that done?[;)]

You can take my pull and $5 and get a cup of coffee anywhere in town.

The ones you want to talk to are Rick and Erik. They are the decision makers on this game series.


Good Hunting.

MR

MR understates his influence -- this team functions in an interesting combination of consensus and independent action. which I suppose is one reason it takes a while for things to move forward.

thanks
rick

So if we could get the squads fleshed out and improve the command structure for the parts of the leaders the infantry combat would be better. How does everyone feel about the actual results that the game produces when the infantry does do battle?

There's pretty much a problem with HQ team units in battle. As they are smaller they can be identified by the opponent and targeted first. Or they have to be made unrealistically large so as to look like a normal squad.