Matrix Games Forums

Engine is so good that everybody wants his/her favorite conflict/battle modeled with it. I have also a list, and it starts in the WWII East Front. But I tell you, I would buy any title that features this engine.
No offense to people who would prefer the not so often featured battles in the current crop of wargames, but I think that the best known battles of WWII still need to be done with Panther's game engine. I have $1,500 worth of other wargames of similar scale that fall short modeling operational tempo, momentum, command structure and quality, combat friction and other essential features of real warfare. I'm in the mood of ranting so, if you allow me:
1) Operational tempo. How many other games of similar scale force you to struggle to keep your wide scale attack plans in order? Coordinating a massive, full division attack is a matter of art in Panther's engine, as its supposed to be.
2) Momentum. An enemy Co is brushed aside by my powerful battalion aided with arty support. What a threat to forget about sinister ZOCs bogging down your advance for hours! You don't necessarily have to kill the enemy to open a hole in the defenses.
3) Command structure and quality. "Nice plan you have commander, I will make sure it is transmitted accordingly down the ranks. However, as usually, I can't assure it will work exactly as you have in mind". And then a battalion that is supposed to provide flank protection for the Div receives their orders too late.
4) Combat friction. "What the hell with the road this battalion is using for the attack? Their flank is unprotected" And then hell breaks loose.

So bring it on, Panther, whatever is beyond CotA. And I wish you a long life in business.

As for the artillary model. I find nothing wrong with it, it is one of the better models I have seen. The AI handles it very very well and since you can tell exactly what is going on it makes for a good experience.
Why do you think it is the weakest of everything represented?

I think the main problem is that you can not calculate the trajectory of indirect fire.
In most games i have seen ,the only consideration is range.
As far as the target is inside the range ,the artillery shell can find him.
In reality ,it is very possible that terrain obstacles and geometry may prohibit a fire solution.
For example an assembly area just behind a hill may be inside the range of an artillery unit but still immune from artillery fire,simply because the artillery unit can not use valid data like angle of fire for example.
So there is not an option of a high angle trajectory that will avoid the hill and land inside the assembly area immediately behind it.

chelco,

Thanks for your kind words.

pamak1970,

I acknowledge that trajectory is not modelled as realistically as we would like. Most howitzers and mortars didn't suffer from this problem. But long range guns and the 88s certainly did. This same issue came up yesterday in our Pacidic Data Design Team ( DDT ) forum discussion in relation to naval gunfire support. So it is something we're aware of and once I get COTA out we'll look into. No promisses but we will examine it.