If I Own CMBB why get PCO?

[thewood1]

The reverse feature was always in, but dramitically changed for CMBB.

[RocketMan]

I have played quite a bit of both CMAK and CMBB and I like both of them despite their many flaws. I got into both of them rather late, long after either game was supported any more. I eagerly awaited PC:K, hoping it would be the long awaited update this genre of games needed, but I was disappointed with PC:K for a number of reasons. In no particular order -

1) I thought not displaying a units ammo count was a huge mistake and this omission detracted from my enjoyment of the game (I'm glad this has been fixed in Ostfront).

2) The lack of waypoints was a huge turnoff for me (Again, I'm glad this was fixed in Ostfront, even if it is only 3 waypoints. This number should be plenty 99% of the time).

3) I didn't like the way units would bounce off of each other if they were both trying to occupy the same space. This was mitigated a little in the PC:K patch, but two units still could not occupy the same space during a turn. For comparison, infantry in CM can occupy the same space as other infantry or vehicles during a turn and then they move a little bit after the turn is over so they are both on different spaces. Has this behavior been fixed in PC:O?

4) I thought the infantry combat model in PC:K was unrealistic. For instance, in one scenario I played, I had 3 to 4 PZIVs shooting 75mm HE shells into a building occupied by one enemy squad, in addition to a 50mm mortar, a couple of halftracks shooting MG34s and a few infantry squads to boot. I fired on the building for 3 turns, probably pumping 30 75mm HE shells into it, I emptied the mortar into the building (50 rounds?, I can't remember the ammo allotment of German 50mm mortars) and fired many rounds of MG and rifle ammo into the building. After all that, when my infantry approached the building, the enemy squad was still there and still had enough firepower to drop my attacking squad. In fact, I felt the whole infantry model for the game was just not quite right. I'm not saying it was horribly broken, and I'm sure some people will disagree with my assessment, but it definitely detracted from my enjoyment of the game. What changes have been made to the infantry model, if any?

5) I thought the graphics in PC:K were excellent, and the maps and the way the terrain was laid out on them was much more realistic than the vast majority of maps in CM. Unfortunately, these more realistic maps with their wide open spaces made the maps seem too small sometimes because of the small maximum map size allowed in PC:K (Again, I'm glad this was fixed in Ostfront).

6) I didn't like having to wait until a new phase to "mount" my units in a building or vehicle (Again, I'm glad this was fixed in Ostfront).

7) Non-destructible buildings was a huge turn off for me (I'm sorry you guys couldn't get this into Ostfront, but I understand it is a huge amount of work).

8. I didn't like the turn sequence in PC:K. I'm not saying it was broken, but it just didn't feel right to me. It will be interesting to see how the new turn sequences work in Ostfront.

There were a few other minor things that bothered me about PC:K, but those are the big ones. There are also some other featured I liked, like formations, and I fully realize CM has it's own issues (e.g. Borg spotting, units not being able to take cover behind walls, etc.), but I just could not get into PC:K like I was able to with CM. I probably played 6 or 7 scenarios in PC:K before I gave up on it and moved onto something else.

I will definitely give PC:O a try when it is finally released (Can we get it before the two year anniversary of this post from Erik on October 13th 2008 I do expect to have an update before Christmas? ) and I want to thank everybody who worked on Ostfront to make it better. It's a shame games like this have to be done on a shoestring (or no) budget.

[madorosh]

Great post Rocket Man, nice to see you active.

Agree with all your comments.

Non-destructible buildings I can live with for the time being, and they're easy to rationalize if one considers that either way, a building will give some form of defensive cover, whether it is rubble, or standing. The inability to topple a building onto defenders is lacking, but I always felt this ability was over-stated in CM, so it may actually be an advantage not to have it in the game. Hammering a building with HE you could often simply bring down the roof within a 60-second turn (particularly on a battle-damaged building) and the TacAI in CM didn't have a self-preservation mode (and no reaction phase, obviously) to get the infantry out of harm's way. It also didn't allow for partial collapses of the building, so a 20-metre square two-story would collapse in on itself in the space of 60 seconds and decimate all within before you could intervene.

Looking at photos of actual battle-damaged stone buildings, they kind of seem sturdier than that, even ones with multiple shell hits. But I don't claim to be an expert; just an impression I was left with

So the non-destructible buildings don't bother me too much.

[RocketMan]

Hey Michael. It's good to see a lot of the old CM gang is still around. You, Geordie, Leto, Mad Russian, Zemke, and I'm sure I'm missing others.

This issue with non-destructible buildings is not just about the ability to actually destroy the building. I liked the certainty of being able to suppress an infantry unit in CM that was in a building if you shot at it enough (i.e. when the building collapsed on them). I never knew how much I had to shoot a building in PC:K to suppress a unit in it, and as stated in my previous post, the amount of punishment an infantry unit could take in PC:K when in a building was not representative of the actual amount of fire a unit would take before retreating from its position in my opinion.

I agree with you that buildings in CM collapsed too quickly in a lot of instances (like those small wooden ones). Unfortunately I don't have any good ideas for some middle ground between the impervious buildings of PC:K and the match stick houses of CM.

[madorosh]

ORIGINAL: RocketMan

Hey Michael. It's good to see a lot of the old CM gang is still around. You, Geordie, Leto, Mad Russian, Zemke, and I'm sure I'm missing others.

Hopefully the trend picks up after release as well. [:)]

This issue with non-destructible buildings is not just about the ability to actually destroy the building.

I agree; I just meant to say I can live with it - for now. There are other obvious issues in addition to the ones you raise too (you can't get LOS from the upper level of a rubbled location, etc.) but I think you hit the nail on the head when you suggest the quest for some middle ground goes on.

I'd like to see even more incremental (granular?) damage models as time goes on, perhaps partial damage such as missing walls, etc., rubbled floors (i.e. you can collapse the top floor but not the bottom), but that's for the future.

[thewood1]

About the only thing still nagging at me is the command issue.  There is no penalty, at least as far as I can remember, for spreading an entire platoon around a 2000m map.  In armor combat, it takes away a significant advantage for early Germans in controlling and operating a tank platoon.
 
I still have a minor issue with setting up ambushes without any arc to control what your unit is shooting at, but I'll wait reserve judgement to see what has changed.
 
I am at a point now where the added stuff outweighs the things CM pioneered that are still absent from PC.  I am cautiously optimisitc.

[Erik Rutins]

Just to comment on buildings - while they are non-destructible in Ostfront they also offer varying protection. "Light" buildings (like wood buildings) protect less than "Heavy" (i.e. stone) buildings. Also, every time a unit in a building takes fire, there is a check based on the shell to see if it penetrates and ignores the cover provided by the building entirely. I have not found infantry in buildings to be impervious - they are well protected against small arms fire, but not close assault and HE fire of decent size can get them out of there in a hurry.

Regards,

- Erik

[Mobius]

I'm not very fond of knowing the exact ammo counts myself. I would prefer a colored info bar or something analog like the gas meter in your car. And defining arcs by electronic ranging stakes or something is too much of the "General rides in each tank syndrome."

[RocketMan]

I probably could have lived with ammo bars as well, but PC:K did not give you any information about the amount of ammo a unit had.

Your comment about the "General rides in each tank syndrome" reminded me of another thing that bothered me about PC:K. As junk2drive said in another thread - "The original intent of Koios was to make a game from the Company Commander point of view with less feedback to the player from a low level." and I'm sure the issue with ammo was meant to fit into that intent. However, with the relatively small number of units in a company, a game of company scale does not provide enough for a player to do to make a game enjoyable (at least to me) if the player is only acting as the company commander. It is relatively easy to control all the individual squads in a company in a game, because it is only around 15 or so units. It is only when you get above battalion sized engagements that controlling the individual units become a chore (at least for me, other people will obviously have a preference for a different number of units they want to order around in a turn).

So my preference for a game of this scale is to not only play the role of Company Commander, but also Platoon Leader and Squad Leader. If I was only playing the role of Company Commander, there wouldn't be enough for me to do during a turn t make the game interesting for me. However, I don't want to control the individual members of each infantry squad either. That would be too much work.

Playing the role of Company Commander would work if the game scale was at the Battalion or Regimental level. At that level, I would want to play the role of Battalion Commander, Company Commander and Platoon Leader, but not squad leader.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: RocketMan

3) I didn't like the way units would bounce off of each other if they were both trying to occupy the same space. This was mitigated a little in the PC:K patch, but two units still could not occupy the same space during a turn. For comparison, infantry in CM can occupy the same space as other infantry or vehicles during a turn and then they move a little bit after the turn is over so they are both on different spaces. Has this behavior been fixed in PC:O?

It has been adjusted.

4) I thought the infantry combat model in PC:K was unrealistic. For instance, in one scenario I played, I had 3 to 4 PZIVs shooting 75mm HE shells into a building occupied by one enemy squad, in addition to a 50mm mortar, a couple of halftracks shooting MG34s and a few infantry squads to boot. I fired on the building for 3 turns, probably pumping 30 75mm HE shells into it, I emptied the mortar into the building (50 rounds?, I can't remember the ammo allotment of German 50mm mortars) and fired many rounds of MG and rifle ammo into the building. After all that, when my infantry approached the building, the enemy squad was still there and still had enough firepower to drop my attacking squad. In fact, I felt the whole infantry model for the game was just not quite right. I'm not saying it was horribly broken, and I'm sure some people will disagree with my assessment, but it definitely detracted from my enjoyment of the game. What changes have been made to the infantry model, if any?

Building parameters have been adjusted into two types. Heavy and light, each with it's own modifiers. The infantry combat model has been worked on but the major changes are slated to be done in PC4.

7) Non-destructible buildings was a huge turn off for me (I'm sorry you guys couldn't get this into Ostfront, but I understand it is a huge amount of work).

It's one of the major changes looking to be implemented in PC4.

Hey Michael. It's good to see a lot of the old CM gang is still around. You, Geordie, Leto, Mad Russian, Zemke, and I'm sure I'm missing others.

The gang is starting to gather. It's like the clarion call has gone out and one at a time the old warriors are coming in to the round table. It's time to take a new look at this late rising Phoenix.

Hopefully it will measure up this time around and move the series towards greater things. Either way, for a free update, it's come a very long way.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Joseph_Nevsky]

This Panzer Command: Osfront looks great! Congratulations! [8D]

I´m looking forward to trying it because I love this kind of tactical wargames. For me, "CMx1" is the best but I hope "Panzer Command" will be better than this one!

Good work, cheer up and keep going! [:)]

Stay tunned...

Rgrds.!

[Rebel Yell]

If this is released soon enough, it looks like an interesting way to pass the time until CM:N.

[Mad Russian]

Yeah, that's just what we wanted to hear.

Good Hunting.

MR

[RocketMan]

ORIGINAL: Rebel Yell

If this is released soon enough, it looks like an interesting way to pass the time until CM:N.

After the huge disappointment CM:SF was (to me at least, and also to a lot of other people) I'm not convinced CM:N will be better than PC:O, although it might be. Only time will tell.

However, I have seen far too many games bomb over the 30 years I have been playing computer games to try and predict how a game will turn out once it is finally released.

Edit: Also, since CM:N and PC:O cover different fronts, those wanting to play the eastern front will have to wait a long, long time before a version of CM:N is released for the eastern front.

[Tophat1815]

There is one in every crowd. I like the fact in PCO looks as though you can actually have trains on the tracks in a scenario.When you go to over-run a rail-yard it looks like a rail-yard.

[Rebel Yell]

That was not a troll. It was actually a compliment.

I have looked at every tactical wargame that has come out since CMBO, and this is the first non-CM one I was ever actually going to buy, thanks to the many great features you've been able to include. Its far from perfect, but it has a long of things that all of us have wanted. But, since you obviously don't want my business, I'll just pass.

Rocketman, SF was definitely full of problems at release, but its been fantastic for over a year now. Even if they didn't make another change in the engine, CM:N would be superior to PCO IMO.

[RocketMan]

ORIGINAL: Rebel Yell

Rocketman, SF was definitely full of problems at release, but its been fantastic for over a year now. Even if they didn't make another change in the engine, CM:N would be superior to PCO IMO.

I'm glad you like CM:SF. I wish I did, because I spent good money on it and never could get into it. But this is not really the place to debate other companies or their games, so I will just say again that I have been playing computer games for over 30 years and I have stopped trying to predict how a game will actually play prior to its release.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Tophat1812
When you go to over-run a rail-yard it looks like a rail-yard.

It does kinda.
[:)]

[Tophat1815]

ORIGINAL: Rebel Yell

That was not a troll. It was actually a compliment.

I have looked at every tactical wargame that has come out since CMBO, and this is the first non-CM one I was ever actually going to buy, thanks to the many great features you've been able to include. Its far from perfect, but it has a long of things that all of us have wanted. But, since you obviously don't want my business, I'll just pass.

Rocketman, SF was definitely full of problems at release, but its been fantastic for over a year now. Even if they didn't make another change in the engine, CM:N would be superior to PCO IMO.

How would you know you haven't even had a chance to play PCO? I never accused you of being a "troll",by and large on these types of wargame forums with everyone having an opinion yelling troll is meaningless.I was just being sarcastic about coming into this forum and trying to promote CM:N with a backhand compliment to PCO.

CM:SF I bought upon it being available and had problems with it from the get-go.It was a radical departure from what made the CM series so interesting for me and I am not talking about choosing the bloody Syrians as the main opposition. PCO is going in the direction I wanted CM to take,it'll with any luck lock onto the WWII crowd a certain company dumped and sell 100,000+ copies.If the other company works out its kinks and produces a good WWII game I hope they sell 100,000+ copies as well.

[Tophat1815]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Tophat1812
When you go to over-run a rail-yard it looks like a rail-yard.

It does kinda.
[:)]

Exactly one of the reasons I am excited about this game!