The highly anticipated second release in the Panzer Command series, featuring an updated engine and many major feature improvements. 3D Tactical turn-based WWII combat on the Eastern Front, with historical scenarios and campaigns as well as support for random generated battles and campaigns from 1941-1944.
ORIGINAL: ravinhood
Also, it was at Best Buy that I saw HTTR on the shelves and Korsun Pocket. Maybe they just don't know you exist any longer??
They certainly do know we exist, but as I've been saying, the retail PC Games market is quite different now from how it used to be. Best Buy is very hard to get into these days for games like we make - turn-based historical strategy.
Hrmmm I don't even goto EB/Gamestop gameshops anymore because they hardly have a PC selection ONE SHELF and it's usually just EA stuff. Best Buy and Circuit City here have HUGE shelves full of PC games still. Circuit Citys goes from the front of the store to the back which is about oh 8 of those 4ft or 5ft wide shelves and Best Buy OMG it has so many shelves full of PC material I couldn't even give an accurate figure, but, for mainstream PC games I'd say it also has at least 6 to 8 of those 4f or 5ft wide shelves.
The presence of PC Games in brick and mortar stores strongly varies among shops of the same chain, even among cities and states.
I didn't buy the first game because of reviews that said it was a dumbed down version of CM.
This was kinda tough to deal with in that fans of the older game often appeared to have played the demo without having bothered to read the rules. Therefore, they had no idea as to how PCOWS was different.
It wasn't uncommon for someone to post a query at the forum as to why certain commands didn't appear as options each "turn." Of course, they didn't realize that there were two phases per turn, each of which had orders that were unique to the turn structure.
I recall having one forum exchange with a CM-Grog who finally admitted that he hadn't bothered to read the rules. His contribution to the body of thought surrounding PCOWS ended when he asserted that the game wasn't CM, so he wasn't interested.
It'd be great if Koios could develop a game that engenders that kind of loyalty (fanaticism?), but, it comes at a cost, believe me.
ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
So, what's the deal, why didn't Panzer Command take off? I have some ideas of my own, in this regard, but I honestly don't think that these can explain the whole dynamic surrounding the public's reaction to the game. So, please, guys, share your thoughts. And if anyone wants to elaborate on the differences between Operation Winter Storm and Kharkov, please feel welcome to do so.
My personal thoughts on this are as follows - the first release had limited content (12 scenarios) and a limited subset of units. While it was moddable, it required more work than most were interested in doing to mod it. The "all winter and flat" look, though historical for the area, also turned off some folks.
I think Kharkov corrects all these shortcomings (and then some!) so I expected it to be received quite differently. So far, that seems to be the case. Winterstorm was a great game, but I think given CM's precedent people wanted a great game with more content too.
Regards,
- Erik
Yeah, when it comes to content, the first three CM games kinda set the goal-posts outta reach didn't they? So much so, that the developer of those games has decided to downsize his content, and is gonna put out "modules," at least that's the way I believe that he'd describe it.
And I have to say that it's always struck me that the success of those old games was due as much to their massive level of content, as it was to their gameplay. Alas, I'm not sure that it makes sense to include so much content from a business perspective, the whole profit thing, I mean.
If you give folks EVERYTHING, all they'll want next time, as in 3-5 years later, is a graphics upgrade.
And some of us don't even require that POE. Though SP is due for one. I agree with what Erik says though. I wasn't excited about PC:OWS, but, I am with Kharkov and really only for the random generators and some of the newer features/units. It's going to have "more than snow" maps and that is a good thing. I don't really like snow maps myself. I like hedges and lots of trees and trenches and BUILDINGS I LOVE BUILDINGS and LARGE BUILDINGS so there can be infantry firefights like Squad Leader.
@Erik et all the other thing I find about todays PC retail outlets is there is no longer any enthusiasm to sell them. Even with Circuit City and Best Buy having large selections the employees hardly know anything about them, hell I know more about them than they do. lol But, if you ask them about a CONSOLE game boy oh boy they will talk your ear off for an hour about Donkey Kong goes Bananna's over Mario. lol I remember a time when I could chew the fat with an employee over turn based SSI wargames and Ultima's for hours, today you ask them about one and they have to look in the computer and then they still don't know what you're talking about. lol I don't think it's the games as it is employee knowledge enough to suggest good PC games to people. They are all quick to recommend the LATEST thing on the shelf lol they just got through stocking it, but, have no clue what it's really like. Like M2TW lol. Of course when I was in the software sales industry I took the time to learn about the games I was selling and promoting. Today like EB/Gamespot they don't even give them shelf space anymore. Really sorry to hear you can't get your foot inside the door to Best Buy and Circuit City as that's the place to have exposure/Face nowadays I think in the retail market.
WE/I WANT 1:1 or something even 1:2 death animations in the KOIOS PANZER COMMAND SERIES don't forget Erik! and Floating Paratroopers We grew up with Minor, Marginal and Decisive victories why rock the boat with Marginal, Decisive and Legendary?
Owie Ouchie Arghhhhh welp he's not my long lost twin brother afterall. He's a commie spy instead. lol J/K Peter.
WE/I WANT 1:1 or something even 1:2 death animations in the KOIOS PANZER COMMAND SERIES don't forget Erik! and Floating Paratroopers We grew up with Minor, Marginal and Decisive victories why rock the boat with Marginal, Decisive and Legendary?
Erik:
I already own WinterStorm plus the CM series and I hope that the PzC series will be able to grow and include the Western and North Africian Fronts too. This way people can play what ever theatre that they are interested in and still use the same set of common "rules" (this saves on production cost of continuely reinventing the game engine and helps the buyers with reducing the "learning curve").
ORIGINAL: Panama Red
I already own WinterStorm plus the CM series and I hope that the PzC series will be able to grow and include the Western and North Africian Fronts too. This way people can play what ever theatre that they are interested in and still use the same set of common "rules" (this saves on production cost of continuely reinventing the game engine and helps the buyers with reducing the "learning curve").
That's the general idea, though the plan would be to improve things a bit on the gameplay/engine side for each release as well. Also, you didn't mention the Pacific. Assuming all goes well and development continues for many more releases, I would definitely like to do a Pacific version.
Erik:
I have no objections to the PTO either, but I figure that the ETO & MTO would have a higher priority than the PTO. [:)]
One of the great appeals about the CM series (to me), is that with some work (and imagiation), they can reflect all the WW2 battle fronts (some obviously better than others).
I am hoping that the PzC series will be the natural successor to the CM series and allow just as much fun as that series has been.
ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
So, what's the deal, why didn't Panzer Command take off? I have some ideas of my own, in this regard, but I honestly don't think that these can explain the whole dynamic surrounding the public's reaction to the game. So, please, guys, share your thoughts. And if anyone wants to elaborate on the differences between Operation Winter Storm and Kharkov, please feel welcome to do so.
My personal thoughts on this are as follows - the first release had limited content (12 scenarios) and a limited subset of units. While it was moddable, it required more work than most were interested in doing to mod it. The "all winter and flat" look, though historical for the area, also turned off some folks.
I think Kharkov corrects all these shortcomings (and then some!) so I expected it to be received quite differently. So far, that seems to be the case. Winterstorm was a great game, but I think given CM's precedent people wanted a great game with more content too.
Regards,
- Erik
This is a pretty good assessment. I came late to the 3D battlefield and the CM series, and found I enjoyed them more than I expected. I started watching both WS forum and Battlefront forums to follow new developments. When Demo was released for WS, I tried it out, and after going over what it offered, gave it a pass and went back to CM (for a while). Eriks assessment seems to be right on the money for me.
I started looking at this board after the announcement went up, and based on eveything I've read, I suspect I'll buy Karkov. Price is right and it seems it might have added enough to be worthwhile. I was ready to buy another game in a few weeks, and this is one of the top candidates.
On a side note, I've noticed in the past several years, I've only bought two "new" games (Take Commands 2nd Manassas and Vic's Advanced Tactics). All of my other purchases have been either older games, or repackaged older games (JTCS and TOAW among others).
I still have not seen what the price will be anywhere. PC:OWS is $40 IIRC.
Will PC:K be the same? Since I have PC:OWS how much is the discount?
Also, what is the difference between 'DX' and 'ST' editions of games?
Gotta get some coin ready for the big day...
I still have not seen what the price will be anywhere. PC:OWS is $40 IIRC.
Will PC:K be the same? Since I have PC:OWS how much is the discount?
Gotta get some coin ready for the big day...
Here is a quote from Erik:
"Well, until the price is actually up in the store there is always a small possibility it may change. However, right now the plan is to price Kharkov at $39.99 (for download) and offer Winterstorm owners a discount of $15 on their purchase (so for Winterstorm owners the price would be effectively $24.99 for download)."
It was very strange to me that PC was not better received. And I found myself then irritated with some of the people who IMO wrongly assumed it was a dumbed down version of CM. Because in my estimation, it is in fact the exact opposite. I think many users were perhaps equating group commands to equal 'dumbed down', when in fact it is a better and more sophisticated model of the command structure. The fact this was being misinterpreted irritated me because I begin to become worried that in order to sell more product a game I appreciate is going to have to become more simple and general in order to satisfy a public who 'does not get it'- and to a wargamer not much is more annoying than that.
Another aspect I liked that also came under fire were the game mechanics, which again in my view actually model reality better than trying to create a finely grained physics based model of reality. Again, I think this is sometimes not understood in the proper way. people tend to have the idea that a complex computer simulation of each bullet, its weight, angle etc, is a more 'realistic' version of reality, when the truth is all the various inputs only create more opportunity for error and misrepresentation. Any small benefit (if one even exists) of a physics model that might perfectly represent 'reality' is a huge waste of time and effort with little or no real positive result for the player. In effect, attention is much better served on any other aspect IMO.
I don't want to cause a battle between the two games, because I realize that a large number of CM players will be the ones buying this product, and determining its success- and I want them to enjoy the game so that it can continue to be developed.
I wonder if there is not some way to highlight the known differences and explain how they are not not weaknesses or oversights, but that they are different interpretations. And maybe explain why the designers choose these interpretations. You would not want to cause anyone to become defensive of course,
but just explain how the differences might be viewed as a positive instead of being seen as 'oversights', or simplifications.
A final thing- about the 3D 'first person shooter' look of the game. This may not be a big problem, especially since the PC game market is becoming younger and younger, but it is a wargame, with a slightly different audience-and I did see somebody refer to it in an earlier post. The largest hesitation to buying the game occurred for me with regard to the '3d first person shooter graphics'. I was worried that it might be some type of action game, or tank driving simulation...especially because I believe there was a title by SSI w/ the same name that was a tank driving simulation??
Anyway,I bought the game and it is nothing like I feared and is no problem at all. I really like the graphics even. But I do play with the camera at a very large height, and adjust the angle to a more overhead view. The game ends up looking more like a 2d, isometric game when I play it. Sometimes, I change the angle to watch a replay, or more often I spin the map to get a better view or look behind a building. I really enjoy being able to do that and can appreciate the benefit of the 3d graphics for this reason (and also because it is easier to mod I believe?)-but 90% of the time I play with a more 'old school', 2d isometric view and angle.
I don't think I see any screen shots that show this exactly. There are some that are pulled back some, but still have a more shallow angle for the camera if i am not mistaken. I wonder if a few screen shots with a more 'old school' viewing angle might help some 'old people' get over the fear of it being an action simulation? it might be a small thing, and you would not want to scare away more users who like 3d than you attract, but perhaps it could be looked considered given the audience.
Anyway, look forward to the release. I really loved the first game quit a bit.
ORIGINAL: tucson3217
I wonder if there is not some way to highlight the known differences and explain how they are not not weaknesses or oversights, but that they are different interpretations. And maybe explain why the designers choose these interpretations. You would not want to cause anyone to become defensive of course, but just explain how the differences might be viewed as a positive instead of being seen as 'oversights', or simplifications.
That's a good idea, I'll see if I can make some time to do that. I was hoping folks who had already played Winterstorm (like yourself) would also help us spread the word in that regard. It is difficult, I agree, to break out of the strict CM-comparison and get people to look at us as a new game.
I don't think I see any screen shots that show this exactly. There are some that are pulled back some, but still have a more shallow angle for the camera if i am not mistaken. I wonder if a few screen shots with a more 'old school' viewing angle might help some 'old people' get over the fear of it being an action simulation? it might be a small thing, and you would not want to scare away more users who like 3d than you attract, but perhaps it could be looked considered given the audience.
I'll make sure to add a couple of those into the screenshot pool too. [8D]
ORIGINAL: tucson3217
Another aspect I liked that also came under fire were the game mechanics, which again in my view actually model reality better than trying to create a finely grained physics based model of reality. Again, I think this is sometimes not understood in the proper way. people tend to have the idea that a complex computer simulation of each bullet, its weight, angle etc, is a more 'realistic' version of reality, when the truth is all the various inputs only create more opportunity for error and misrepresentation. Any small benefit (if one even exists) of a physics model that might perfectly represent 'reality' is a huge waste of time and effort with little or no real positive result for the player. In effect, attention is much better served on any other aspect IMO.
Tucson, I like the cut of your jib.
I didn’t want to get into the physics thing because so many people have much invested in believing that their game uses real physics and ballistics. But Physics without Chaos Theory is just engineering.
Thus most games that say they are using physics and ballistics are just using engineering formulas that produce synthetic values. The results may or may not match actual penetration numbers for said weapons. That is because the real test numbers were derived from average values of a large number of test results. Going the other way a formula will only produce one number for a set of factors. In PC we just went out and found the real world data for weapons and armor. (If looking for real numbers reality is a good place to start.) Then vary each occurance up or down by the probability induced by certain factors. Hoping to regain the complexity of real world situations.
ORIGINAL: tucson3217
Anyway,I bought the game and it is nothing like I feared and is no problem at all. I really like the graphics even. But I do play with the camera at a very large height, and adjust the angle to a more overhead view. The game ends up looking more like a 2d, isometric game when I play it.
I also tend to ignore the look of models once the game is underway, concentrating on locating the enemy coin IDs from a high overhead view.
So when you're hearing from me, Stridor and Mobius, you're actually hearing from people who were very involved in the game's ongoing daily development.
Erik,
fair enough, I stand corrected in this particular case.
ORIGINAL: Chris Merchant
fair enough, I stand corrected in this particular case.
... and I admit this is certainly not the case with all of our games. Some are entirely developer projects where we act as a traditional publisher and facilitator, others we are more involved in. Kharkov falls towards the opposite end of the spectrum from "just a publisher", but I don't expect folks to know that if we don't speak up about it. [8D]
I agree with what Erik says though. I wasn't excited about PC:OWS, but, I am with Kharkov and really only for the random generators and some of the newer features/units. It's going to have "more than snow" maps and that is a good thing. I don't really like snow maps myself. I like hedges and lots of trees and trenches and BUILDINGS I LOVE BUILDINGS and LARGE BUILDINGS so there can be infantry firefights like Squad Leader.
