Matrix Games Forums

Customer Service at BFC is pretty good.  Customer relations sucks.

If, in a very very far future, MG should close you would be able to play anyway his games, but games protected by DRMs would be unplayable if their Customer Services should close... I am for opensource software and I think that DRMs frustrates only legal buyers [:-]

Ok guys, please do not make this personal. If you want to compare the games, please do, but this is the last reminder to keep it constructive and civil, otherwise we will have to lock this thread.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: general_solomon

...to the creator of this thread: dude, if your still not convinced about buying this game then don't.

As I posted many days ago, I HAVE bought the game, and posted some threads about the Bootcamp and random scenarios....[;)]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
I am equally bemused by this reply from Pillar. I'm not sure the PCO development team would like to hear that their game consists of cardboard chits moving along like robots, with player skill being an irrelevance... And this is supposed to be a positive somehow?

Hmmm, interesting, the infantry units are merely carriers of the infantry characteristics. The little sprites themselves don't try to emulate the behavior of actual infantry.

And before long we'll have even more of the little infantry sprite carriers...[8D]

Good Hunting.

MR

Is it not an accurate way to describe it? 

Sorry, I see why that would be confusing.

Ok, the issue isn't "more player control is better than less". It is player control over the really important inputs, which are the ones that most control the outcome.

So, in pzc you tell a platoon which route to go and that choice. That's the level you play the game at, and below that, stuff like the use of lmgs or bazooka are taken care of in the math, which is a system of percents as far as I can tell.

It's true there are things I'd like to have more control of and I'm hoping for improvements coming in PC4. But the problems with the control have more to do with the UI imo. I really dislike the platoon orders system for a number of reasons, for example. I could live with it if platoon hq's just set the platoon "stance" rather than have to issue movement orders for everyone (and then cancel them.)

In CMBN there are some times when the player wants to do something but he can't get the soldiers to do it, because the infantry ai that governs how they use the action spot is doing something else. Setting up machine guns is tricky, for example, in urban or trench terrain. And it can really affect how things go if your mgs aren't getting LOF. ><

ORIGINAL: Pillar

Is it not an accurate way to describe it? 

It's not how I see it, but I have no major issue with your description as such.

My point is that, as cardboard carriers or sprites or whatever, unsupported Soviet infantry seem to love advancing on my Panzers, even after the infantry have taken losses. This even occurs on Turn 1 of the Campaign, so it can't be that the Soviet AI is attacking, surely? I just wish they would stay in their trenches like real infantry do when confronted by armour.

I don't really see what there is to disagree about

ORIGINAL: Pillar

Sorry, I see why that would be confusing.

Ok, the issue isn't "more player control is better than less". It is player control over the really important inputs, which are the ones that most control the outcome.

So, in pzc you tell a platoon which route to go and that choice. That's the level you play the game at, and below that, stuff like the use of lmgs or bazooka are taken care of in the math, which is a system of percents as far as I can tell.

It's true there are things I'd like to have more control of and I'm hoping for improvements coming in PC4. But the problems with the control have more to do with the UI imo. I really dislike the platoon orders system for a number of reasons, for example. I could live with it if platoon hq's just set the platoon "stance" rather than have to issue movement orders for everyone (and then cancel them.)

In CMBN there are some times when the player wants to do something but he can't get the soldiers to do it, because the infantry ai that governs how they use the action spot is doing something else. Setting up machine guns is tricky, for example, in urban or trench terrain. And it can really affect how things go if your mgs aren't getting LOF. ><

The CMBN comment is true and it's frustrating. I avoid putting MGs in buildings because of it.

ORIGINAL: Pillar
Is it not an accurate way to describe it? 

I guess so.

Yeah needs tweaking still

ORIGINAL: Pillar

I could live with it if platoon hq's just set the platoon "stance" rather than have to issue movement orders for everyone (and then cancel them.)

It's good that you can live with that because that's exactly the way it is. The HQ gives the orders to the platoon. If you want anything other than that you have to give additional orders.

Good Hunting.

MR

Just get both? I've been playing a lot of CMBN and I'm loving it. I don't own a copy of PCO (yet) but I'm very close to caving in and buying one, but of course, I wouldn't want to give up CMBN, I think its a fantastic game. On the other hand, can someone explain to me what the main differences are between PCO and CMBB (Barbarossa to Berlin)?

edit: Just so that its clear, I'm not trying to stir or anything like that, not wishing to imply that PCO has nothing on CMBB, just wanna know the differences.

Cheers
phantom67

I would suggest searching my name and CMBB...I did a comparison of CMBB and PCK.&nbsp; Then you can look at the change list for PCO to see what was added.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: Pillar

I could live with it if platoon hq's just set the platoon "stance" rather than have to issue movement orders for everyone (and then cancel them.)

It's good that you can live with that because that's exactly the way it is. The HQ gives the orders to the platoon. If you want anything other than that you have to give additional orders.

Good Hunting.

MR

I'd like to avoid having to cancel the orders

The system doesn't make you cancel anything.

What it does is have a set order that you follow when giving orders. It's simple.

You give orders to HQ units first. Then you give orders to anyone in that platoon that is doing something the rest of the platoon is not doing.

There is no giving extra orders. The system is designed to have you give less orders. You can give orders to the entire platoon instead of having to give each and every squad in the platoon a separate order.

What you have asked for so far is exactly the way the system works. Unless I don't understand your concerns yet.

Good Hunting.

MR

Hello PC:Ostfront-community here comes my first post.
Please excuse my bad English.

I have pre-ordered and played all Combat Mission games since Beyond Overlord
(CM:BO, CM:BB, CM:AK, CM:SF+Marines+British+NATO, CM:A and now CM:BN -> mostly PBEM (WEGO)).
I'm one of the BFC-'fanboys'that 'holded the line' when CMSF struggled in that cauldron battle against WW2_CMx1'lers after it came out 'to early'.
I never was a classic 'tabletop-board' wargamer in the true sense. The corner I come from is
computer-games (classic Wizardry and SSI AD&D CRPG, X-COM, Jagged Allicance + clones,
Steel Panther Series, Close Combat games)

When the first Panzer Command (Winterstorm?) came out I don't even bothered to
try out the demo, because I knowed at this time, that I would not play it anyway
after I read that the infantry combat model was only 'abecedarian'.

I first heared about PCO on the battlefront forum some weeks ago, and having a
long weekend this last week, I decided to give it a try after I read
the Ostfront Full Feature List.
I bought it straight a way over the download-only option, don't bothered with the demo.
I expected that I would not really like it, just wanted to check it out in full version and give some money to the developers for there effort and enthusiasm.
I was right with this expectation in regards, that PCO is not to be able to hold a candle to CMBN. (CMx2)
The CMx2 engine is much to inovative and now firmly 'grounded' after CMSF.
No chance for Panzer Command-engine to catch up and confront CMx2-engine head on.

But this would be a usesless 'fight'. You can't compare PC:O with the CMx2 engine, it's the wrong playing-field.
So why I don't have shelfed PC:O after trying it out over the last two days and bother to write this post on the PCO-forum?

For the following commends take in to account that I'm still a total noob regarding Panzer Command Ostfront,
(I still struggle to take that Church in the first Boot Camp scenario on easy level).

My observations so far:

- Never judge PC:O against CMx2 - the design philosophy is too different.
- PC:O is the (succesfull) try to optimse and improve CMx1-'playstyle'.
- PC:O trys to take all the good aspects of CMx1+Steel Panthers+Close Combat
- So the games to judge PC:O against are CM:BB and CM:AK (and SP+CC)!!!
- PC:O is 'under the hood' in essence a classic 'old school' wargame for the good or better, not a simulation in the way of CMx2.
- This last point is the 'Sollbruchstelle', that one has to understand in it's full consequence to make a determination if PC:O is 'crap' or a 'gem'.
- PC:O is 'crap' when you expect CMx2.
- PC:O is a true gem, a very deep -even inovative in parts- classic computer wargame, that concentrates on the Platoon Command aspect foremost.
- PC:O concentrates on the aspects BFC left alone, when they pioneered in new CMx2 areas and brings them to perfection.

Points that I realy like about PC:O:
a) deep WEGO rules (reaction phases)
b) exquisite single player campaign game (with awards that have a function in the game-system!!!)
c) very functional map editor (don't have tried it for real till now)
d) Good Quick Battle Generator -> even for Campaigns
e) clear 'game-rules' which are explained in the manual (would not make much sense for CMx2)
f) nice UI, easy to get into
g) Unit statistic, which mean something in context of the 'game-rules' (again not much sense for CMx2)
...
z) it's an improved CMx1 flair with FULL WW2-OSTFRONT !!!! :]

What I would like to see:
Just some thoughts after playing for two days.

I like to play this game in 'true grog-combat'-mode (trying to stay Alt-TABed in ground view as best as I can)
- Problem is to swith units and selecting spotted enemy units.
- Would be nice is if I could switch through my units and always stay Alt-TABed...
- ...and click enemy  units from far or in zoomed view but still stay Alt-Tabed to my own selected unit.
...
- Option to show the small map as full screen (...and always stay Alt-TABed)
- Alt-key for taking away UI during playback should have the option to function as a permanent on/off switch.


Question:
- Give copulas on vehicles a small chance to spot to the rear when buttoned-up?

Many thanks for this game, I'm for shure will stay tuned on for this.

Thanks for the support. I can't disagree with anything. I like your wish list but don't know if it is possible.

Your last question, we tried all kinds of things with tanks and vision. Some things gave unrealistic or unexpected results. We will keep trying though.

ORIGINAL: Smaragdadler

Hello PC:Ostfront-community here comes my first post.
Please excuse my bad English.

Your English is just fine.

I've been to the Fulda Gap. Are you from Germany?

But this would be a usesless 'fight'. You can't compare PC:O with the CMx2 engine, it's the wrong playing-field.

That's what we keep trying to tell people as well.

What I would like to see:
Just some thoughts after playing for two days.

I like to play this game in 'true grog-combat'-mode (trying to stay Alt-TABed in ground view as best as I can)
- Problem is to swith units and selecting spotted enemy units.
- Would be nice is if I could switch through my units and always stay Alt-TABed...
- ...and click enemy  units from far or in zoomed view but still stay Alt-Tabed to my own selected unit.
...
- Option to show the small map as full screen (...and always stay Alt-TABed)
- Alt-key for taking away UI during playback should have the option to function as a permanent on/off switch.

I'll add those to the Wish List.

Question:
- Give copulas on vehicles a small chance to spot to the rear when buttoned-up?

That's been discussed at some length. At the moment tanks can only see straight ahead if buttoned up. I'll add that onto the Wish List as well.

Many thanks for this game, I'm for shure will stay tuned on for this.

Welcome to PCO. This is just the start of where PC can and hopefully will go. Where it ends up in great measure depends on gamers like you.

Good Hunting.

MR