Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: z1812

It was quite informative and for the most part sums up the differences between PCK and CMx1 objectively.

regards John

John,

Did you find the following part of the article confusing at all?

I think its game play is still slightly less than that of CM:BB. Here are a few key reasons:

*PC:K’s units are a subset of the units CM:BB provides. No allied armies, more limited timeframe, few infantry type options, etc.
*No covered arcs. In fact some of the designers/developers are dead set against them.
*Order system that is still not completely matured.
*No waypoints, chaining movement types, or color coding of movement lines for quick reference.
*No/Limited TacAI to handle events in the middle of the action phase
*No fatigue model
*Use of buildings by infantry
*A significant feel that this is basically a board game with computers; phases, opportunity fire, reaction, dice rolls, factors, etc.

What is good about PC:K:

*New and interesting platoon command system
*Heads Up Display (HUD) that allows you to select units from list
*Events list that brings you to unit when clicked
*Formations
*Flexible camera system
*Limited command delays
*Mini map for good situational awareness

Personally, I found Kevin's comment about "use of buildings by infantry" kind of odd. Is he indicating that one of the games does it better than the other, or is he getting at something else?

Also, I'm surprised that the author didn't mention PzC's use of relative-spotting as a positive for the newer game.

Finally, as to TAC-AI, Kevin may not realize it, but units, including armour, actually do react to threats in the game. For instance, a vehicle can fail a morale check and then withdraw with it's front facing the enemy. I have to add however, that this doesn't happen terribly often, which could be why he didn't mention it.

Thoughts?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

I am the author...

It is confusing because it was really a series of posts on this forum.  MD asked me to consolidate it and he did some formating to clean it up.

I consider the building issue in CM's favor.  It has better use of the buildings above the single squad mounting that PC has.  They can also enter without stopping for the player to tell them to mount the building.

I have seen a withdrawal only once in PCK and thought it was a bug at the time.

I did mention relative spotting.  Several times in the text. 

For what its worth, I play POA2 a lot.  It has the best sighting/spotting system, bar none, in tactical wargaming.  It has all the things one needs, relative spotting, mutiple intelligence sources, spotting clocks that cause spotting to become more fuzzy without current sightings, FOW on unit types, and the fact that friendly FOW is almost as strong as enemy FOW.  Its the first game I have ever played where you can see how freindly fire happens  When comparing PCK to that, it is no better, and in some ways worse, than CM.  I find relative spotting has less impact on my decision making than ID FOW.  Look at the scenario I used.  I tried to make relative spotting an issue.  It really wasn't.  But ID FOW was a bigger issue.  As a first time user of the scenario, I would have made several different decisions if I knew exact unit IDs as soon as they were spotted.

The main issue in CM is that once units become aware of an AT gun, ALL units turn towards it and fire on it.  It is specifically frustrating with AT guns.  Other times it varies in its frustration factor.  Most times experience level of the units can even it out.  But keep in mind that the variable FOW in CM makes up for some of the issues in borg spotting.

Hi PoE,

( I am editing because thewood must have been writing his reply while I was writing mine but he posted first. [:)]. So you may take the following with a grain a salt as you have it now from the proverbial horses mouth )

I don't know what Kevin Prouty meant regarding "use of buildings" but perhaps he finds the entry and exit procedure too abstracted. Maybe he means that the buildings are not destructible? Also once the troops are in the building they cannot be moved about.

He does mention relative spotting and borg spotting in the article but not in the summary. Perhaps a simple omission. Mind you from what he said I don't think he sees relative spotting as such an improvement.

Regards John

I recall following Kevins series of posts here. It was nice to see it put together in article form.

I agree with thewoods assessment of building use - though to me it's only marginally better in CM. Actually, what I've come to most not like, is how unmounting works to put your unit back where it was when it "mounted" the building. I understand the reason, but I'd like to be able to move to a building, then enter, perhaps provide some covering fire for anohter unit, then then move out in the assaualt direction, rather than having to go back to where I was when I entered. Kind of like leapfrogging in a built up area.

Also, I actually think once Stridors MapMaker is released, the map making issue should slide toward PC:K. Though even with MM making maps isn't easy - it is possible to create more realistic maps with PC. (actually with MM making maps might be fairly easy, - just not for some of us graphically challenged souls).


I recall trying to make up some Squad leader maps in CMBB and the result was simply bad. I couldn't get the roads the way I wanted them, the buildings very hard to get where I wanted. I siomply wasn't satisfied.

But with PC:K, I'm able to tweak things quite nicely (thanks to Stridors MM).

I'm anxiously looking forward to the next release of PC to add a few things. In the meantime, I'm still playing. (though I have to admit my game playing time has had to drop a bit to take care of some things.)

But, started out this post just to thank thewood for that article and to thank MD for the link!

Rick

The main issue with the MM is it is rather difficult to use.  It may be more realistic looking, but you'll have a significantly smaller community willing to put the effort into maps.  Does that realism effect game play; I think not very significantly.  It is the same issue with CMSF.  The maps are harder to make and the AI difficult to setup.  That has lead directly to fewer scenarios.  PCK is heading in the same direction. 
 
So the decision comes down to  whether you want more realistic looking maps or a geater number and variety of maps that look blocky.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I am the author...

It is confusing because it was really a series of posts on this forum.  MD asked me to consolidate it and he did some formating to clean it up.

Thanks for responding. I'm sincere in complimenting you on both the substance and effort of your work.

I consider the building issue in CM's favor.  It has better use of the buildings above the single squad mounting that PC has.  They can also enter without stopping for the player to tell them to mount the building.

Thanks for clarifying.

I have seen a withdrawal only once in PCK and thought it was a bug at the time.

Nah, it's not a bug. It just doesn't happen often enough to be appreciated or understood. Perhaps Koios should look at dialing-up its frequency. [;)][;)][;)]

I did mention relative spotting.  Several times in the text.

Good enough. I just see it as a feature that I'd cite were I to compile a list like the one that you've published, one that denotes the relative strengths of the two games.

Thanks again,

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

I have seen a withdrawal only once in PCK and thought it was a bug at the time.

Nah, it's not a bug. It just doesn't happen often enough to be appreciated or understood. Perhaps Koios should look at dialing-up its frequency. [;)][;)][;)]

Sounds like you guys are playing with mostly Veteran and Elite units or just not getting into too many sustained firefights. It's more frequent with Green units and more frequent in situations where a firefight lasts for a while rather than being decided quickly (more checks, more chances to decide on withdrawal).

I usually see a unit and/or platoon-level withdrawal once or twice per battle (per side) for decent size battles. Small battles with fewer units you tend to have correspondingly fewer checks so you can go a whole battle without seeing that. The last battle I fought against the AI was actually decided when a Soviet Platoon's morale broke and it withdrew from a key position.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Sounds like you guys are playing with mostly Veteran and Elite units or just not getting into too many sustained firefights. It's more frequent with Green units and more frequent in situations where a firefight lasts for a while rather than being decided quickly (more checks, more chances to decide on withdrawal).

There's a school of thought that would suggest that Veteran and Elite units ought to be more responsive to a threat than a Green unit.

I usually see a unit and/or platoon-level withdrawal once or twice per battle (per side) for decent size battles. Small battles with fewer units you tend to have correspondingly fewer checks so you can go a whole battle without seeing that. The last battle I fought against the AI was actually decided when a Soviet Platoon's morale broke and it withdrew from a key position.

It might be that most folks are playing as the Germans, rather than the Russians, and that's why they are less aware of the morale-driven reverse. I dunno.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
There's a school of thought that would suggest that Veteran and Elite units ought to be more responsive to a threat than a Green unit.

Yep, we had that discussion too. It really comes down to how much "Tac AI" you want and how much you want the player to decide that. In PCK, it's not really a "threat check" as much as a "loss check" though.

It might be that most folks are playing as the Germans, rather than the Russians, and that's why they are less aware of the morale-driven reverse. I dunno.

Could be.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

It really comes down to how much "Tac AI" you want and how much you want the player to decide that.

Well, I can tell you I don't want, and that's CM-style micro-management and control. In CM, most of the vehicles are way too nimble, they accelerate too quickly, and stop in too short a distance. The system of commands accentuates these characteristics, rather than in any way limits them. It can make for a fun game, but can also appear maddeningly contrived.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

Actually, way back in the CMBO day, either Steve or Charles stated accel and decel are modeled in the algorithms, but not in the grapics.  Its based on engine horsepower and weight.

I just double checked and it is the unit info window.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Actually, way back in the CMBO day, either Steve or Charles stated accel and decel are modeled in the algorithms, but not in the grapics.  Its based on engine horsepower and weight.

I just double checked and it is the unit info window.

LOL, I just tried to post a three-paragraph response to your message, one which outlined my understanding of the physics involved with those old klunkers, and the logical sequence that a righteous algorithm would have to account for in modeling the movement-fire-movement characteristics of a WW2 vehicle like a Panther. Anyway, the freakin' forum software timed me out. I lost all my work, and I don't have time to reconstruct the post this evening. It'll just have to wait.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

I don't think its anything sophisticated.  They probably just look at hp and weight and come up with a delay to get to speed or stop.

In fact, there was a lenthy debate on power to weight ratios for AFVs in CMBO forums. No game execept POA2 and Steel Beasts has tried turning ratios at various speeds.

ORIGINAL: thewood1
I have seen a withdrawal only once in PCK and thought it was a bug at the time.

That is unique. I get that at least once a battle. Annoying when it happens after the first casualty of the platoon early in the game. My units are either veteran or elite too. I feel it happens too much for just loss of one unit.

As an actual example look at the article.  Played several times and not a single withdrawal.  Even with the carnage on the soviet side.

Recently I played some pbems as Soviet and I have seen withdrawal at least once a battle.

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: thewood1
I have seen a withdrawal only once in PCK and thought it was a bug at the time.

That is unique. I get that at least once a battle. Annoying when it happens after the first casualty of the platoon early in the game. My units are either veteran or elite too. I feel it happens too much for just loss of one unit.

Mobius,

A few posts up, thewood1 mentions an algorithm that's incorporated into CM which accounts for acceleration and deceleration in tracked-vehicles. At the risk of misrepresenting his thoughts (which isn't my intention), the algorithm imposes a movement penalty on said vehicles, one which limits the distance moved, which is to say, were the algorithm not in place, the vehicle would transit more of the map than it actually does. This constraint is not modeled in the graphics; it's not apparent to the eye.

I believe that I recall reading something similar about PzC, but I don't think that their was any sort of algorithm involved, but rather an absolute value. For instance, vehicle A moving at 30kph requires 50m to reach a full stop. I'm not sure what the source of the data was. And like CM, the effect is not modeled in the graphics. Vehicle movement is smooth from start to stop, and varies by type only in the apparent speed. Some vehicles are "faster" than others.

In reference to my second paragraph, how far off am I? [;)]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
I believe that I recall reading something similar about PzC, but I don't think that their was any sort of algorithm involved, but rather an absolute value. For instance, vehicle A moving at 30kph requires 50m to reach a full stop. I'm not sure what the source of the data was. And like CM, the effect is not modeled in the graphics. Vehicle movement is smooth from start to stop, and varies by type only in the apparent speed. Some vehicles are "faster" than others.

In reference to my second paragraph, how far off am I? [;)]

Panzer War and PCK use the same speed numbers but Koios uses them in PCK differently. PCK ties the speed more to specific orders than PW. I made a table for Erik last year trying to decipher what Koios was doing with movement but I don't remember the details. I do remember that Rush movement was pretty close to what PW uses but the other orders had slower speeds which I think represents the vehicles being cautious.

On another board I asked some former tankers about stopping and most agree tanks can stop very fast if needed. They can come to a stop under 50m from almost any speed.

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: thewood1
I have seen a withdrawal only once in PCK and thought it was a bug at the time.

That is unique. I get that at least once a battle. Annoying when it happens after the first casualty of the platoon early in the game. My units are either veteran or elite too. I feel it happens too much for just loss of one unit.

There are literally hundreds of examples when an entire attack is called off with the loss of one or two vehciles, or a few men. In real life men want to live to get home to their families. In wargames they all become heroes.

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: thewood1
I have seen a withdrawal only once in PCK and thought it was a bug at the time.

That is unique. I get that at least once a battle. Annoying when it happens after the first casualty of the platoon early in the game. My units are either veteran or elite too. I feel it happens too much for just loss of one unit.

There are literally hundreds of examples when an entire attack is called off with the loss of one or two vehciles, or a few men. In real life men want to live to get home to their families. In wargames they all become heroes.

Good Hunting.

MR

But isn't that what variable morale levels are for in the first place MR? If not, then why have them?