Proof why 1to1 representation is not a good idea.

[JMass]

I am not interested at all in a game where infantry is modeled 1:1. It could be interesting to model losses as individual soldiers rather than abstract steps, but waste CPU's cycles just to observe what is doing every small soldier in a (tank centered) game at company or battalion scale is not my personal idea of the wargamer's paradise...

[Mobius]

In one to one gaming there's always the question of weapons and ammo. If your team captures an enemy position do they collect weapons and ammo of the dead? Do they know beforehand if there are weapons and ammo available when your squads are lost so they can go collect them? At some point it begins to be a treasure hunt.

I remember in ASL the same thing happened. The single most important piece of equipment became the wheelbarrow as it allow your squads to collect the most booty.

[general_solomon]

sounds good guys, i am ready to what will be a good spring and summer season for wargaming .

appreciate all the efforts. hopefully the game will make enough money so matrix can fund pco2.

[AstroCat]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

In Panzer Command, infantry is represented as squads and teams. We don't model down to the individual man, even though you can display every man in the squad or team the losses are taken as steps. We do model every weapon in the squad and all the realistic elements of infantry combat and tactics are present.

Does this mean you will see full squads with all men graphically represented on the battlefield but the calculations are done as a group and not each soldier?

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: AstroCat

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

In Panzer Command, infantry is represented as squads and teams. We don't model down to the individual man, even though you can display every man in the squad or team the losses are taken as steps. We do model every weapon in the squad and all the realistic elements of infantry combat and tactics are present.

Does this mean you will see full squads with all men graphically represented on the battlefield but the calculations are done as a group and not each soldier?

I think all of the squads are modeled with 5 figures. There is a toggle to display 3 figures per squad for lower-end systems. It is possible to mod some files and display MORE than 5 figures, but you would want to have a powerful system to display very many.

The modding needed is editing of XML files, not modelling the additional figures.

Thanks
rick

[general_solomon]

maybe in the next title there will a graphical representation of every soldier without the 1:1.

[Ratzki]

I like that idea, how hard of a hit would it be on the CPU though?

ORIGINAL: general_solomon

maybe in the next title there will a graphical representation of every soldier without the 1:1.

[Erik Rutins]

Hi guys,

We do not plan to go to 1:1 modeling for individual soldiers. That raises a whole host of new issues and can cause a reduction in realism unless implemented with great care, for fairly minor benefit at this scale. If our focus were on a battle with one just one platoon on each side, it might make sense, but we want to be able to depict larger battles and we don't feel 1:1 offers significant advantages in that context.

With that said, we DO plan to put increased focus on modeling of infantry combat. It's already realistic and significantly improved in Ostfront over Kharkov and Winterstorm, but there's quite a bit more we can do and you'll see that in future releases. We want to focus more on a good implementation of the command effects at this scale and the tactical choices a company or battalion commander would make rather than a squad leader or platoon commander.

The only reason we don't show every man in the squad (five is the largest "default" size) is for performance. On a high end system, showing the full men per squad will not cause an issue and you will definitely get the best game experience with a good 3D gaming system, but we want to make sure Panzer Command works reasonably well on lower end systems too. For the future, we plan to implement an option to display the full number of men in each squad for higher end systems rather than leaving that to modders (it is a VERY easy mod though).

Regards,

- Erik

[Ratzki]

Sounds good to me. It would be nice to get 1:1 step losses, but keeping the squads abstracted somewhat is good. I would rather lose the 1:1 and have the ability to play larger battles.

[general_solomon]

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

Sounds good to me. It would be nice to get 1:1 step losses, but keeping the squads abstracted somewhat is good. I would rather lose the 1:1 and have the ability to play larger battles.

also, its a bit more managable, I find myself really getting frustrated when playing tow2 because there is just too much to do.

another feature would be cool something like command ops could be used for pc2. this way your can give orders like a real general and let your commanders deal with issuing those orders.

[Richie61]

ORIGINAL: general_solomon
also, its a bit more managable, I find myself really getting frustrated when playing tow2 because there is just too much to do.

another feature would be cool something like command ops could be used for pc2. this way your can give orders like a real general and let your commanders deal with issuing those orders.

I totally agree about the TOW2 deal. It's a beautify looking game graphically. The tanks, troops and landscape are one of the better game engines out their, but what a pain in the butt trying to keep your squad together or hopeless when they get split up. [:@]
Achtung Panzer: Kharkov 1943 is a better game to play than TOW or TOW2, but managing your troops can also get [&:] at times.

I rather like how CM and PC handle the "ground pounders". IMO.

[JMass]

ORIGINAL: Rick
It is possible to mod some files and display MORE than 5 figures, but you would want to have a powerful system to display very many.
The modding needed is editing of XML files, not modelling the additional figures.

I edited the German Panzergrenadier 41 xml file to display 10 men, you could observe that the men should not bunch up so much but PCO is, at now, designed to display 5 men. Anyway, in my opinion, it could be a nice mod.

[Enigma6584]

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

Sounds good to me. It would be nice to get 1:1 step losses, but keeping the squads abstracted somewhat is good. I would rather lose the 1:1 and have the ability to play larger battles.

From your previous post you mentioned playing company or battalion vs battalion scenarios. One can play those sizes in CMSF. I know because I have. I assume one could play the same sizes in CMBN.

[Mobius]

How about company vs. tank brigades?

Prokhorovka

[Ratzki]

ORIGINAL: RedCharlie65

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

Sounds good to me. It would be nice to get 1:1 step losses, but keeping the squads abstracted somewhat is good. I would rather lose the 1:1 and have the ability to play larger battles.

From your previous post you mentioned playing company or battalion vs battalion scenarios. One can play those sizes in CMSF. I know because I have. I assume one could play the same sizes in CMBN.

I am sure that you can. The point is that the more that a player has to worry about on screen, the more labourious each turn becomes as you will now have to be so much more careful as to where you plot your moves to take into account the terrain and position(s) of each and every soldier, all X a battalion or more worth of squads. I know that CMSF and CMN are squad based, but what will happen if I plot a move that leaves some of my men in cover and some outside this same cover? I can see a player being forced to get right down to plot his moves, and this does not translate well to larger formations. Plus the CPU hit has to be up there as well to handle 1:1. If your machine can take (x) number of squads in a battle before it locks up, then it will potentially only be able to handle (x/10 assuming a linear reduction and a 10 man squad) soldiers before the same cpu stumbles.
Have you tried playing a full regiment worth of infantry with added tanks ect. with CMSF? There are some CMx1 battles out there at this size, and I never found anyone that could not play them due to cpu issues. I do not own CMSF, but I would dare to stick my neck out and say that CMx1 will handle larger battles then will CMSF. All so that I can look at what amounts to eye candy with 1:1 on screen. CMSF is still a squad based system so why do I need to know what each soldier is doing, all I want to know is what is happening to the squad. In effect, all that the 1:1 thing is doing is kicking the crap outa my cpu for what gain as far as gameplay and how I will use my squads?

[wodin]

1:1 infantry can be done....it's not like it's some kind of coding impossibilty....CMSF does it well...not perfect but good enough.....I'm sure the next PC game will do it very well aswell......just because CM and PC started off with 3 man representations doesn't mean we can't move on, we have the PC power to do it...we didn't a few years ago...

Oh just read the next game won't be 1:1, but that doesn't bother me...if the infantry comabt is enhanced in ways that would be difficult to do with 1:1 I'm happy...doesn't mean I don't like 1:1 though..purely for immersion reasons as I want to be entertained..otherwise if you want super realsitic I expect you'd have to end up making some kind of text\spreadsheet wargame...PoA2 is very realsitic and no one was that interested...

Also i'm not sure why we need CMBN vs PC threads on all the forums...both are two seperate games that play in different ways and I don't think comparing them really works nor does this is better than that posts...

Fort me it's simple I prefer infantry combat over tank warfare...so I know which one I'm getting as it covers more of what I'm looking for...however that doesn't mean at some point I wont get the othe rgame and I'm definately interested to see what they do with the next version, I only hope it is anothe East front title though...as I do like my East front games and I find that campaign alittle more interesting than the West front.

[thewood1]

No one was interested in POA2 for two reasons...
 
1) it didn't work for 6 months after release
2) it was really a simulation, not a game...it's roots were an air force simulation.
 
As to 1:1, there are just too many compromises in fitting a true 1:1 representation of 1:1 at the scale BFC and PC are playing at.  1:1 works very well in ArmA.  But in CMSF, sighting issues for individual soldiers and clumping of soldiers into small areas are only the most common issue.  Look how long it took BFC to get squad movement, pathing, and cover seeking anywhere close to realistic.  With abstract squads, even ones that show one figure for each man, that can be covered through adjusting firepower factors.  In CMSF, any adjustment requires moving away from the 1:1.

[thewood1]

Why does anyone have an issue with comparing CM and PC?  They are both playing at exactly the same scale.  They are simulating the exact same times in history.  I imagine they will both cover the exact same theater.
 
I think that drives good healthy discussion.  I have a feeling if we were all a little too sensitive in discussing that, PCO wouldn't even exist.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: wodin
Also i'm not sure why we need CMBN vs PC threads on all the forums...both are two seperate games that play in different ways and I don't think comparing them really works nor does this is better than that posts...

As they cover the same scale, same period and same war material it's natural to compare them. OTOH, you might get two books on the same historic event as different authors have different ways of covering it.

[freeboy]

and the two have a very different flavor, although cm2 is still "untested" at least publicly in the ww2, I for one am amazed after playing nearly all cm and theatre of W and pc the depth available seen in the vids of CM2N, really cool seeing the germans storm two floors of a building will callin gin morters and having tanks in an overwatch assault all orchestrated togeter..
ok also played the under recognized AP Kharkov 43 
So we will see upon release  of both of these
good hunting