Infantry in Panzer Command?

[Bil H]

Hmmm....  a few thoughts...
 
1.  Number of visible men per squad.  IMO it would be a mistake to show more than the 3 or 5 men per squad.  This game sounds too abstracted to show up to 12 men per squad.. all you are really doing is showing a gaggle of infantry that has no real meaning and eating up available video resources.
 
2.  Simplified infantry.  I understand that this is an armor heavy game, but there was a LOT of infantry in those "tank" battles.  Tank formations at this time (and even today) were not so heavily armored that you can realistically choose to just ignore the PBI (poor bloody infantry), they had a very important role, and were not so easily dispersed and over run by armor units.  Just ask the German tank heavy formations at Kursk. 
 
That being said, I understand your focus and your need to get the game out the door, I only hope you aren't shooting yourselves in the foot and jeopardize the hope for experienced players to take you seriously with an undermodelled infantry system.  I think it would be one of the areas a reviewer would key on to attack.
 
3.  Infantry as a unit (ie no internal casualties).  This I think is the biggest problem with your system.  It should be very tough to destroy an infantry unit, especially by armor, which has visibility problems.  There is a reason why you hold ground with infantry they are very resilient.  Better would be a system that reduces an infantry unit's capability by steps, 2 or 3 would do IMO for this game. 
 
Now, I guess I'll just need to get my hands on the game to check it out for myself.  I really like the basic concept for this game, and hope it succeeds, but I have my doubts about the oversimplification of such an important battlefield component.
 
Bil

[Erik Rutins]

Bil,

ORIGINAL: Bil H
2.  Simplified infantry.  I understand that this is an armor heavy game, but there was a LOT of infantry in those "tank" battles.  Tank formations at this time (and even today) were not so heavily armored that you can realistically choose to just ignore the PBI (poor bloody infantry), they had a very important role, and were not so easily dispersed and over run by armor units.  Just ask the German tank heavy formations at Kursk.

By all accounts, the spearhead in this campaign really _was_ that tank-heavy.

That being said, I understand your focus and your need to get the game out the door, I only hope you aren't shooting yourselves in the foot and jeopardize the hope for experienced players to take you seriously with an undermodelled infantry system.  I think it would be one of the areas a reviewer would key on to attack.

Every reviewer has an opinion, but I'll say from the start that we set out to model infantry enough to cover this campaign and without going into a higher level of complexity. I think we succeeded in that, but I also think that we will need to improve the infantry modeling as we add other campaigns.

3.  Infantry as a unit (ie no internal casualties).  This I think is the biggest problem with your system.  It should be very tough to destroy an infantry unit, especially by armor, which has visibility problems.  There is a reason why you hold ground with infantry they are very resilient.  Better would be a system that reduces an infantry unit's capability by steps, 2 or 3 would do IMO for this game. 

The infantry in this game is actually quite resilient for that reason as well. We give them a "casualty save" which is reduced when facing excessive firepower, but it makes it unlikely for a squad to be wiped out easily. Also, the cover modifiers for infantry are significant. They are definitely harder to kill than it may seem on reading about the system.

Your suggestion on multiple casualty "steps" for infantry is exactly where we are heading for the future. [8D]

Thanks for your thoughts and feedback.

Regards,

- Erik

[Bil H]

Erik, thanks for the quick reply.  I'll have to see it for myself to make my own conclusions.
 
I have one more question though...  [;)]
 
You guys mention that this is a campaign oriented game, with the 3D component used to play out the battles, but I have not seen any screen shot of the campaign mode and how that works... can you help me out?  Or am I misunderstanding what I read?
 
Bil

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Bil H
You guys mention that this is a campaign oriented game, with the 3D component used to play out the battles, but I have not seen any screen shot of the campaign mode and how that works... can you help me out?  Or am I misunderstanding what I read?

Nope, there are two campaigns - one for the German offensive and another for the Soviet counter-offensive. I will post some screenshots today. The campaigns have an initial briefing + area map for each scenario, then a screen to purchase your auxiliary forces and supplement your core forces. At the end of each battle you can review unit performance and see which units were able to be recovered from losses, which were not, any medals awarded and experience gains, etc. At the end of the campaign, you can review your overall performance and be awarded a campaign rank.

I'll post some campaign screenshots later today.

Regards,

- Erik

[Marc von Martial]

1. Number of visible men per squad. IMO it would be a mistake to show more than the 3 or 5 men per squad. This game sounds too abstracted to show up to 12 men per squad.. all you are really doing is showing a gaggle of infantry that has no real meaning and eating up available video resources.

This is in the hands of the gamer, if you have the ressources you can show the full squad if you want. If you don't have them, don't select the option.

[ravinhood]

I need to understand this infantry thing better. Are you saying that you either eliminate the whole infantry unit or none of it at all in a fire fight??? No little individual men will fall down and die on a one on one basis? Cmon even CM moddled somewhat of this effect when a certain portion of the squad had been killed then one little man on the stand would disappear. So modeling 3-5 men on a stand is nothing more than cosmetic for the really just one single "counter" like on a boardgame map?

[Erik Rutins]

Ravinhood,

That's correct, for this release. Down the line, we absolutely want to add guys falling down. Now your report will state when the squad is taking casualties. Usually, it's not wiped out in one hit and you have a chance to get it out of a bad situation if you choose.

Regards,

- Erik

[Yoozername]

I think most CM fans, that were initially excited about the prospects of features like relative spotting, multiman representation, etc; are begining to understand that this game is just a bunch of miniature rules adopted to a 'CM-like' program.

I suspect many other 'hanky-shmanky' unrealistic 'funzo-isms' also. 

[Plodder]

My,my,you're in a bad mood.Slagging off the game in 2 threads?And you haven't even played it yet.[:-]Considering your excitement when the game was announced you seem to have changed your mood somewhat.Just because it's not the dream game you've always wanted doesn't mean the rest of us CM'ers aren't intersted by it.I like the fact that most things are moddable.[:D]

[benpark]

The miniature ascpect is what interests me about the game. I originally interpereted PzC as being much like TS:Caesar or TS:Alexander had been presented in terms of the gameplay. The screenshots seem more realistic than I had first imagined them. This is great, but I hope the system retains some of the tabletop feel to it. That's what sets it apart from all other systems out there.

Thanks to the devs for the extra infantry men. It's nice to see companies that listen to their customers(when they are right[;)]). Now just give us the map maker. Keep the unit database locked, like CM and HTTR/CoTA for other "sequals". The swarms will come if you do that. Freedom is the opiate of the gameplayer.

I hope to see many more battles with this system from WW2, particularly from the Eastern Front (Spring Awakening!). Infantry is really where it's at as far as my interests, so the more detailed the gameplay there, the better.

Now get that preorder up! I still have a few days free...

[Erik Rutins]

Actually, we consider the miniatures game basis a plus. Koios used the same kind of basis for Tin Soldiers: Alexander the Great and Tin Soldiers: Julius Caesar and those are great games. I've played a lot of great miniatures games in my life as well. We've never said this would be CM or one step beyond CM, but we've said that it's a fun historical wargame system.

Regardss,

- Erik

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

I need to understand this infantry thing better. Are you saying that you either eliminate the whole infantry unit or none of it at all in a fire fight??? No little individual men will fall down and die on a one on one basis? Cmon even CM moddled somewhat of this effect when a certain portion of the squad had been killed then one little man on the stand would disappear. So modeling 3-5 men on a stand is nothing more than cosmetic for the really just one single "counter" like on a boardgame map?

There may not even be some lasting effect either? Such as reduced firepower once 'recovered'? Its funny that they would bother with the 'eye-candy' aspect of multiman representation, yet there is no actual effect from firepower.

[Erik Rutins]

As I've said, the focus of the initial release is not on infantry, but the rules work to give them a fair representation. Adding some more resolution to infantry combat is on our list.

Regards,

- Erik

[Yoozername]

Well, antitank guns ARE a part of 'armor' battles given this time period.  And for all intents and purposes, they ARE 'infantry'. 
 
So an ATG can be targeted and no tracking of crew casualties is tracked?  It can pop back to full rate of fire?  No degradation to its spotting ability (less 'eyes')?  No exposed ammunition destroyed? 
 
Its either not harmed, suppressed or destroyed?

[junk2drive]

Similar to some other games that I have played, I am the Commander, not the NCO, in PCOWS.
When the battle is raging, I know that I have troops in the woods. I know that they are under fire and taking casualties. I have decisions to make all over the map.
Not knowing the number of fallen troops does not spoil a game for me. It adds to the tension.

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

Similar to some other games that I have played, I am the Commander, not the NCO, in PCOWS.
When the battle is raging, I know that I have troops in the woods. I know that they are under fire and taking casualties. I have decisions to make all over the map.
Not knowing the number of fallen troops does not spoil a game for me. It adds to the tension.

You miss the point. 'Not knowing'? Whats to know? It isn't tracked.

Basically it sounds like you shoot at troops, they get suppressed, you pour it on and they *bloop* disappear. No tension. Thats a snooze.

You shoot at troops, they get suppressed, you fail to pour it on, and *bloop*, those troops return to normal. YAAAAWWWNN.

[Erik Rutins]

Yoozername,

It's abundantly clear this game is not the one you would have designed. Lots of other gamers don't share your opinion. There's always been room for both World in Flames and Axis and Allies.

Regards,

- Erik

[ravinhood]

Thanks Erik, I just wanted to understand how infantry work. I had forgotten Koios was predominantly a minatures style programming group (CM braindead here lol). Sounds fine to me as long as I know how it works. I've enjoyed Caesar and I'm pretty sure I'll enjoy this one also. Though the russian front side of the war isn't one of my favorite areas of WWII battle it's still better than Market Garden or some Sicily battleground early in the war. (HTTR/COTA isn't for me so you're right about what you said above, not every game is for everyone)
 
I look forward to Koios future work, I have my own visions of other eras I'd like to see them do, they could get lost in this WWII era for quite some time though (I hope not).
 
I guess the only couple of things besides individual infantry modeling in the future would be random maps and buy point system of play. It's still my favorite style of choices.

[mbelew]

you pour it on and they *bloop* disappear

As an aside, the infantry don't disappear, they stay on the map. So do dead tanks and anything else that dies. Dead armour clogs up choke points and stay in the battle as an obstacle.

Koios used the same kind of basis for Tin Soldiers: Alexander the Great and Tin Soldiers: Julius Caesar and those are great games

Thanks Erik!

The big difference here is that the 'Hand of God' doesn't take things off the battlefield. Units are now completely animated to abstract that miniatures feel even further; this in in opposition to the Tin Soldier's games completely embracing it.

[Erik Rutins]

ravinhood,

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
Thanks Erik, I just wanted to understand how infantry work. I had forgotten Koios was predominantly a minatures style programming group (CM braindead here lol). Sounds fine to me as long as I know how it works. I've enjoyed Caesar and I'm pretty sure I'll enjoy this one also. Though the russian front side of the war isn't one of my favorite areas of WWII battle it's still better than Market Garden or some Sicily battleground early in the war. (HTTR/COTA isn't for me so you're right about what you said above, not every game is for everyone)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm sure it will take a little adjusting for CM fans to wrap their heads around this one, since there's been so little else in the 3D tactical scene - CM casts a very long shadow, as it were. However, there's a fun game here and I think it can coexist with CM.

I look forward to Koios future work, I have my own visions of other eras I'd like to see them do, they could get lost in this WWII era for quite some time though (I hope not). I guess the only couple of things besides individual infantry modeling in the future would be random maps and buy point system of play. It's still my favorite style of choices.

You'll be pleased to hear that the point buy system is already in this release and a map editor as well as more advanced infantry modeling is in our plans.

Regards,

- Erik