RE: CMx1 vs PCK
Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 2:54 am
ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
CMSF changed the way wargamers buy games for awhile I think.
In what way?
Alot of gamers pre-bought CMSF. The old AH marketing strategy. Buy it because WE MADE IT kind of a thing....support the company....God and Country kind of a thing.
Some have asked for, and if I understand it correctly, gotten their money back. After 7 patches and a year later the game is where it should have been to begin with. Alot of gamers are waiting now for someone else to be the first to buy the game and tell them it's "okay".
I can try to send you the screen shot. I see what I think is the objective on the small map but I got nothing on the larger map. I even tried jumping to it by clicking on the location on the small map. Nothing worked. No objectives on the map for me.....
Hm, very odd. I'll load up the Winterstorm Demo tomorrow and see if I can duplicate that, but I don't recall ever seeing that problem or having it reported. So, I hope it's just that we're missing something explanation-wise. The objective on the map should look like a flagpole with a blue or red flag on it. I'll post a screenshot from the Winterstorm tutorial as I see it here tomorrow.
I'll try the tutorial again in a bit and see if I can get it to show or at least take a screen shot of what it is I see for you.
Yes but why have 2 of the 3 phases with the same name? Why have two orders phases? Why not have an orders phase, a combat phase and a reaction phase or something? Why two orders phases and then a reaction phase and why no clock so I can tell how much time has elapsed?
Sorry, what do you mean by 3 phases and two orders phase? There is only one orders phase and one reaction phase per turn. There is also a one-time initial setup phase at the start of each scenario before Turn 1. Instead of a clock, you should see a display with text like the following, as the phases end and move on to the next one:
Turn 1 Orders Phase
Turn 1 Reaction Phase
Turn 2 Orders Phase
Turn 2 Reaction Phase... etc.
Not in the game I played. There is an order phase where you give them. Then an orders phase where the turn is played out. Then a reaction phase where the second half of the turn is played. The first two phases both have the same name. OR I tried to give units orders that weren't accepting them....that could be. Not sure if PC would do that or not. It could in some games.
Here is a problem for me. You are going to tell me, that out of a 5 tank platoon, I can watch all 4 other tanks in my platoon get killed, without our own fire having any noticeable effect on the enemy at all, and we will hold our positions until we too are killed?
I'm not buying that in real life. Men want to live. Pixels don't care. Your modifiers should only allow that if it happens within the same 80 second turn. Not if it happens over more than one. Even a two tank loss with no visible effects to the enemy, from our fire, and I'm pulling back out of there.
Well, I see retreats pretty often, but honestly there were certainly instances where platoons fought to the death and in pretty much all fronts in WWII there were instances where mounting losses did not result in a guaranteed withdrawal or retreat. It's unlikely in my experience that a platoon that attrits gradually will not at some point fail a morale test and retreat. Generally those that get wiped out without a retreat do get wiped out pretty quickly.
Note that the one factor that is not considered, which you describe in your analysis, is "no visible effect to the enemy". Our platoon morale is based on platoon losses. Individual morale is based on individual unit damage/casualties. A unit can fail both an individual morale check and/or a platoon morale check. Either can result in a retreat, so you can have just one or two tanks in the platoon bug out or the whole platoon withdraw at once.
Again, you get to intervene every 40 seconds. Unlike CM, Panzer Command puts more of the burden of this onto you the player. If you want them out of there, pull them out. The AI is told to do the same thing. I assume if it didn't pull those units out of there, it was for one of two reasons. 1. It felt it could still accomplish something there, perhaps it was on a key objective with no other forces nearby or 2. It only had a chance to withdraw in the reaction phase and Winterstorm did not have a Reaction Withdraw order (Kharkov does). The AI in Kharkov is also much better than the Winterstorm AI, so that may also have played a role - I haven't played against the old Winterstorm AI in a while, so I may be misremembering its tendency to withdraw, maybe that was a Kharkov improvement.
Yes, but we're not talking about what I did. We are talking about the computer sitting there and having me over the course of 3 or 4 turns kill 5 tanks while they don't blink.
I understand that a human player can do whatever they want. I'm concerned with what the AI will do. I normally make alot of scenarios vs the AI. I have entire series of scenarios that deal with AI fights exclusively.
Now that you bring it up. At what level am I commanding in PC? Since all wargames are a balance between a simulation and a game. I'm interested to see what part you have that is simulation and what part is game.
There must be tradeoffs unless you want to start ducking bullets while you play the simulation on your computer...which I don't!
What you seem to be trying to model is a Bn/Bde sized actions. Colonel or Major on down. But even that is a trade off. He would only give orders to at most 10 men and none of them would be platoon commanders. Well, he might in an extremely rare situatation give commands to a platoon commander.
It's an excellent question. Battalion is about the right level, but we have some fuzzy areas which are frankly in there because it's a game and we wanted to keep in some elements that would make the game more fun, even if they blur the hard "command level" line. By default, you tell the platoon leader what to engage. As an option, you can also target his platoon individually. As a further option, you can tell them each what ammo type to use. It is not necessary at all to go down to that level, but we have it in there as a concession to the fact that in certain stuations and for certain players it adds a lot of fun to be able to do that.
Still, apart from the extra targeting/ammo type details, I think we do a pretty good job of otherwise encouraging the player to command each platoon leader and not micro-manage too heavily, while making it possible for critical situations or those who just prefer that play style.
You have IMO taken the right road at exactly the right place. There must be enough of a game in it to make it fun. There should be enough of a simulation in it to make it as realistic as possible.
The choices you have made are the ones that have for too long been missing in computer tactical wargaming. Let the computer do what it dos best. Handle the small details while you concentrate on winning.
The chain of command with a bit of fuzzy added in for fun is just the right formula I think. It was for us on the US Army project. We got rave reviews but they still didn't buy it.....lol....
SL/ASL was a bad example for you. Those maps, while fixed, were also moveable in four directions per map. Could be combined into limitless configurations. I have 4 full sets of SL/ASL maps. I'm very aware of their capability. At the moment PC is nowhere near that.
True in terms of the ability to combine them, but see my other reply on the set maps. You're probably right that Close Combat would have been a better analogy.
Yeah..yeah...yeah....that's your story and you're sticking to it...[:D]
There's really no other option for you at the moment since PCK doesn't have an editor. I respect your position.
I take it PCK will not have editable maps then?
Not in terms of changing the map mesh, no. Although there's a scene editor include which can reshuffle the terrain, it's an internal tool and pretty darn primitive so I wouldn't really consider it a feature. It's more there for those who are particularly brave. But for those that are, the only thing that can't really be changed right now is the actual map mesh. You could change the terrain if you used the Scene Editor. Again though, I really would say that it's not user-friendly and included only because we felt it might be of use to some. It's easy to move a tree or a building. Redoing an entire map is a pretty huge job.
For all intents and purposes, I'd say the maps are set and that's your map palette. The scenario editor and campaign editor on the other hand are quite full-featured and apart from editing the maps themselves, everything else about a scenario or campaign is quite easy to change with user-friendly tools.
I've just spent two months making a map for a single scenario for a tournament I'm putting on this summer. So I know how detailed map making can be. I've even written articles on how to make realistic maps. Normally it takes me a day to do a map. This one is different....obviously.
Not sure about PCK.More than likely if it doesn't have a map editor I won't buy it. In the roughly 5 years I've owned CMBB/CMAK I've put out well over 100 scenarios. That's a big part of what I do with a game. I put out scenarios I like to play. Then I let the rest of you play them too....[:D]
Without a map editor that's not going to happen.
Well, you might find that you get a fair amount of fun out of it as a player, whether you decide to design for it or not.
I might but I only have room for one tactical game system at a time. I put too much into the hobby to do it as a second thought.
Maybe I'll need to wait for the next game in the series. Do you know what that is? What theater?
No set title or specific campaign yet, but it should be focused on a few things:
1. Improved design tools (map editor and such), removing limitations on map size, etc.
2. Adding the Western Front
Even if you don't join us on this cruise, I'm pretty sure we'll get you on the next one. [;)]
Regards,
- Erik
That's a good choice.
You have at least one more Eastern Front module to do as well at some point. The King Tigers, JS-2's , JSU's and all the big cats are missing......hmmmmm....that can't stay that way forever.....
Hopefully you will grandfather the first two titles in the series and bring them all to the same level of game play as well when you get it set.
I wasn't aware that there was a non tutorial scenario I could play on the tutorial. I'll have 2 check that out as well.
Good Hunting.
MR
