Matrix Games Forums

I think CM does a commendable job with infantry, at the scale its at.  I love CC and played it almost religiously for over 10 years.  Its main draw back was map size, even for infantry battles, pathfinding, and armor/support weapons.  For what it was limited to, CC was a good and fun infantry game.  It was by no stretch of the imagination a combined arms view of WW2.  CM and PCK, to some extent are closer to combined arms.  CM is much more mature in that respect than PCK.  Real life tactics work in CM when it comes to infantry vs. armor.  The 3-man graphics were needed to let more units into the picture.  Look at CMSF, 1:1 graphics that have the same issues CC had with trying align units on a ridge, in a trench, along a wall, in a house, etc.  CC was also on 2D, which I don't really mind, but still a different representation of a battle.  Don't forget, CC, at least from what I remember, still had the infamous borg spotting.
 
Here is a cool discussion that included a real wargame/simulation developer about CC and turn-based games:
 
http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2522407&fpart=2

I love how this game reminds me of my long loved Combat Mission series. Since the powers that be at Battlefront Games decided to change--and ruin!--this series with their egregious CMx2 system, I am now hooked on Panzer Command. please keep more modules coming!

Toozasi,
 
Like you I have enjoyed playing CM1 for many years, but unlike you I think that CM2 is (now) a fantastic game. The prospect of the WW2 modules has me drooling!  All of which just illustrates the impossibility of pleasing everyone!

Perus58--I tried to like CMx2 but just couldn't. I just love the WEGO system in Panzer Command and CM1.

Toozasi,
You can play WEGO in CMSF, but I would agree that it does not seem to work as well as in CMBB/AK and PzC

I tried the CMSF demo and it just did not "hook me' as Panzer Command and CM did. I'll still check out the WWII module--if I live long enough![;)]

ORIGINAL: Stridor

Just to reiterate what Ben said, that latest map making tools (in open beta) require no 3D modelling experience. You can now make quite useable maps quickly (< 1hour) and the maps have an advantage over CM by being non-tiled, and at 1m ground resolution as well as being a more realistic representation of terrain.

The latest versions even include the ability to add custom labels and terrain grids to your maps (something which had been requested of PCK).

If you can use MS Paint then you can make a map in PCK.

That's the other thing I forgot to mention the small static maps to begin with 1kmx1km is just too small. Everything is within fire/sight range pretty much with such a small scale. 2km/m x 2km/m would have been much better and things wouldn't have seemed so squeezed into such a small box.

ORIGINAL: killroyishere
That's the other thing I forgot to mention the small static maps to begin with 1kmx1km is just too small. Everything is within fire/sight range pretty much with such a small scale. 2km/m x 2km/m would have been much better and things wouldn't have seemed so squeezed into such a small box.

It would be interesting how they do the 2kmx2km maps ...

If they gave us two ways to make the maps it would be nice .... ie, a single 2kmx2km map is four 1kmx1km maps, which could be modular defined in an XML file .... OR the option to make one big 2x2.

Perhaps going further and arranging the 1x1 maps in a row .... creating a 1x4 map.

Very interesting idea.

Rob

I'd like to point out there was no random terrain for battles&nbsp;in WWII or any other war.&nbsp; It was&nbsp;unchanging terrain selected somewhat at random.&nbsp; If the battle was going to be at a certain town there wouldn't one day be a hill to the&nbsp;south of the town&nbsp;and to the west the next.
&nbsp;
Depending on how fast new maps can be made a campaign could be&nbsp;envisioned with new maps made each week or so from GE&nbsp;for a new battle.&nbsp; The location would be some distance from the last&nbsp;based on the results of the outcome of the previous weeks battle.

ORIGINAL: Mobius

I'd like to point out there was no random terrain for battles in WWII or any other war. It was unchanging terrain selected somewhat at random. If the battle was going to be at a certain town there wouldn't one day be a hill to the south of the town and to the west the next.

And just as soon as you code up an interactive strategic layer for PCK, your comments might have some applicability...

Hi All

ORIGINAL: Mobius
I'd like to point out there was no random terrain for battles in WWII or any other war.  It was unchanging terrain selected somewhat at random.  If the battle was going to be at a certain town there wouldn't one day be a hill to the south of the town and to the west the next.

It is a game and people like to have fun. They like the option of having nice looking and interesting maps that can be easily made or randomly generated. The easier the better.

regards John

Given that the game does not specifically concentrate on pre battle maneuver, I wonder about the comment that 1Km maps are too small.
A WW2 battalion on the attack usually had a 1Km or less frontage. They would generally have defined borders on the left and right as other units would be operating on their flanks. Are you really playing with battalion size forces? Companies tended to attack on a frontage of anywhere between 275-800 meters.

I grant that the map could use a little more depth, but 1Km width seems fine for a company level force.

ORIGINAL: bardolph

Given that the game does not specifically concentrate on pre battle maneuver, I wonder about the comment that 1Km maps are too small.
A WW2 battalion on the attack usually had a 1Km or less frontage. They would generally have defined borders on the left and right as other units would be operating on their flanks. Are you really playing with battalion size forces? Companies tended to attack on a frontage of anywhere between 275-800 meters.

I grant that the map could use a little more depth, but 1Km width seems fine for a company level force.

Exactly.

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh

ORIGINAL: bardolph

Given that the game does not specifically concentrate on pre battle maneuver, I wonder about the comment that 1Km maps are too small.
A WW2 battalion on the attack usually had a 1Km or less frontage. They would generally have defined borders on the left and right as other units would be operating on their flanks. Are you really playing with battalion size forces? Companies tended to attack on a frontage of anywhere between 275-800 meters.

I grant that the map could use a little more depth, but 1Km width seems fine for a company level force.

Exactly.

Yeah, but there are weapons in the game that can kill anything that can seen at any range on a 1K map, even for scenarios depicting platoon or squad level engagements.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)