Matrix Games Forums

I recently downloaded the "unofficial demo" of this game, however, I stopped playing it before actually engaging the enemy (Soviets). I stopped playing because it was late at night and I was frustrated with how the game was playing out. When the "official demo" comes out I will most likely give this game another try.

The impression that I get is that the developers at Matrix intentionally went out of their way to make the feel of the game (from a tactical battlefield perspective) as different from Combat Mission as possible. Unless Battlefront gave Matrix a stern warning about emulating too many CM features I don't understand why this done.

While it sounds like I tried to play this game as if it was Combat Mission, that isn't necessarily true. What I did do was play the "unofficial demo" without reading the manual first. I did this because that was how I initially played CM. I also did this because I wanted to see how intuitive Panther Command's GUI was.

Even though Combat Mission is a very complex game that only someone with a strong interest in WWII land combat can truly appreciate, I was able to immediately play that game without reading the manual. CM's AI kicked my butt a lot early on, however, it wasn't because the commands or user interface were difficult for me to use or understand. I (and I am sure many other people) enjoyed getting my ass handed to me because it was so easy to play that game even though I didn't know how to properly use the units at my disposal. While I am sure that there are plenty of people who hate CM's user interface, I bet many of those same people would agree that they didn't find CM's GUI difficult to use even if they didn't like it.

From tactical combat perspective, I was expecting that this game would be as good as if not better than CM, however, imo it CURRENTLY is not. While I can understand that Matrix doesn't want this game to be just a better version of CM the reality is it probably has to be. It seems to me that 1C's soon to be released game named "Theatre of War" is the only competition out there. That said, where is the niche for this game? Imo, if Matrix keeps this game small but with better features than CM it should be able to sell well for many years. If this game was a smaller but better version of CM it could draw its customer base from long time playing CM customers and from people who liked playing Close Combat. I would like to have both Panther Command and Theatre of War on my PC, however, if I wind up liking the demo for ToW I don't think I will purchase this game as it currently plays out. Maybe I will like Panther Command more in a year or two?

Here is a quick synopsis of what I saying to myself while playing the unofficial demo. Don't read too much into what is written below.

"What keys control the camera. What key removes the trees. Where is the pop-up hotkey menu?"
"Why can't I simply lasso a platoon (to select all the units) and tell it to advance in that direction?"
"What the &#@!&% I am trying to select tank #2 to advance 60 meters why did the game give tank #4 my movement command?
"No, I want the tank to move 300 meters straight ahead. I don't want it to first veer off into those trees which are 50 meters from my initial endpoint."
"Platoon movements are cool but what do I do if I want a couple of my tanks to flank that enemy position?"
"Where is the "reverse" command?"
"What the &*^%! is the alternative to using the middle mouse button?"

Hi Tactical Command,

Thanks for your feedback. As you noted, this was not the official demo, so we didn't have things in here that would be geared towards a "quick glance" demo audience, like a separate hotkey reference (it's in the manual) or an in-game tutorial.

ORIGINAL: Tactical Command
The impression that I get is that the developers at Matrix intentionally went out of their way to make the feel of the game (from a tactical battlefield perspective) as different from Combat Mission as possible. Unless Battlefront gave Matrix a stern warning about emulating too many CM features I don't understand why this done.

This is actually the first time I've heard this exact comment. Many folks have commented on the similarities, but fewer on the differences, which I agree are substantial. That's not a bad thing though, IMHO.

While it sounds like I tried to play this game as if it was Combat Mission, that isn't necessarily true. What I did do was play the "unofficial demo" without reading the manual first. I did this because that was how I initially played CM. I also did this because I wanted to see how intuitive Panther Command's GUI was. Even though Combat Mission is a very complex game that only someone with a strong interest in WWII land combat can truly appreciate, I was able to immediately play that game without reading the manual.

I think the main advantage CM had in this regard was the in-game hotkey reference. Other than that, I find the interfaces about the same in terms of complexity. Did you find the mini-map or OOB display helpful?

CM's AI kicked my butt a lot early on, however, it wasn't because the commands or user interface were difficult for me to use or understand. I (and I am sure many other people) enjoyed getting my ass handed to me because it was so easy to play that game even though I didn't know how to properly use the units at my disposal. While I am sure that there are plenty of people who hate CM's user interface, I bet many of those same people would agree that they didn't find CM's GUI difficult to use even if they didn't like it.

I understand that it wasn't as easy for you get started with as CM, though I wonder if to a degree this was because of some conventions you were used to from CM play? I don't recall CM being super-intuitive, though it was certainly easy to use. I recall having to refer to the hotkey reference and also the readme/docs to really understand what everything meant and how it worked (for example, hitting Enter to see unit specs, the various Shift and Alt key combinations, etc.) In Panzer Command, you really just have a few pages to read in the manual to understand that, but the point remains well-taken.

For the official demo, we'll include the hotkey reference separately and also a walk-through for new players.

From tactical combat perspective, I was expecting that this game would be as good as if not better than CM, however, imo it CURRENTLY is not. While I can understand that Matrix doesn't want this game to be just a better version of CM the reality is it probably has to be. It seems to me that 1C's soon to be released game named "Theatre of War" is the only competition out there. That said, where is the niche for this game? Imo, if Matrix keeps this game small but with better features than CM it should be able to sell well for many years. If this game was a smaller but better version of CM it could draw its customer base from long time playing CM customers and from people who liked playing Close Combat. I would like to have both Panther Command and Theatre of War on my PC, however, if I wind up liking the demo for ToW I don't think I will purchase this game as it currently plays out. Maybe I will like Panther Command more in a year or two?

In terms of our goal, we want this game to be more open than CM (it currently is), with more user moddability and flexibility (once we finish the full editor), a full campaign system (already in but will continue to be improved) and a more miniatures-based system (already in). In addition, we want it to require less managing on the part of the player and to be more user-friendly. We feel that it's a good combo as an alternative or complement to CM for tactical gamers. From your feedback, it seems we still have some work to do on the user-friendliness, but I think we're certainly very close to CM's level in that.

"What keys control the camera. What key removes the trees. Where is the pop-up hotkey menu?"

That right there is what makes me wonder if being used to CM is the real issue rather than our interface being more difficult. It's like loading up a word processor and finding it doesn't do things exactly the same as Microsoft Word. It may be just as good, but initially it can be annoying.

"Why can't I simply lasso a platoon (to select all the units) and tell it to advance in that direction?"

Good point from the CM perspective, although in CM this is necessary. In Panzer Command you just click on the Platoon HQ and the whole platoon gets orders when you give them - no need for lassoing the platoon. By clicking on the HQ unit in the OOB display, you can quickly find it without searching on the screen.

"What the &#@!&% I am trying to select tank #2 to advance 60 meters why did the game give tank #4 my movement command?

That I can't answer for you, when I tell Tank #2 to move, it moves.

"No, I want the tank to move 300 meters straight ahead. I don't want it to first veer off into those trees which are 50 meters from my initial endpoint."

Pathfinding could be improved, granted, but usually if the path veers it's not veering towards trees but away (it tries to choose the path of least resistance). We also have on the list to add a waypoint or two, or at least an option to choose a covered path, shortest path, fastest path, etc.

"Platoon movements are cool but what do I do if I want a couple of my tanks to flank that enemy position?"

Absolutely possible. You can set an order for your platoon like Engage and then tell two tanks to take a different path.

"Where is the "reverse" command?"

Look for "Withdraw" in the orders menu.

"What the &*^%! is the alternative to using the middle mouse button?"

Shift key + mouse move

I do encourage you to take a quick look through the hotkeys in the manual and also read through the four or five pages on the various ways to adjust your view and also how the orders work. This shouldn't take long and will probably massively improve your play experience.

Thanks for the feedback and please do check out the official demo once it's released.

Regards,

- Erik

I do encourage you to take a quick look through the hotkeys in the manual and also read through the four or five pages on the various ways to adjust your view and also how the orders work. This shouldn't take long and will probably massively improve your play experience.

As a bonfide civilian around these parts, I can't emphasize how important it is to read the game manual. I can still recall the NUMEROUS occassions on which I sincerly believed that aspects of the game were FUBAR'd because it wasn't behaving the way that I thought it should. Then I read the manual, started analyzing events as they played out on the screen, and most of what had troubled me began to make a lot more sense. In this respect, experienced players of other games can be disadvantaged by that with which they are overly familiar.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

ORIGINAL: Tactical Command
From tactical combat perspective, I was expecting that this game would be as good as if not better than CM, however, imo it CURRENTLY is not. While I can understand that Matrix doesn't want this game to be just a better version of CM the reality is it probably has to be.

How is it not better?

"Why can't I simply lasso a platoon (to select all the units) and tell it to advance in that direction?"

I haven't seen that maneuver in any Technical Manual. Have seen it in warcraft and some first gen battlegames.

"What the &#@!&% I am trying to select tank #2 to advance 60 meters why did the game give tank #4 my movement command?

Have seen that. The game sometimes doesn't acknowledge that you selected a new tank. Maybe weak click on your part. Kinda sticks to the old tank. You can't just hold the mouse over the tank and right click. You have to get it to have a blue outline first. You actually gave the order to tank#4 without realizing it.

Hi Eric,
 
I hope my first post on this forum wasn't too harsh of a review. Matrix seems to be doing a great job of listening to their customers and trying their best to make Panther Command a better game than it already is. I am going to try and find some time this weekend to put in some more play time with the "unofficial demo".  
 
Just so you have a better idea where my first post POV was coming from I going to post a sentence or two about myself. 
 
I have opposing motives for being interested in this game:
Reason #1:  To play with friends and family members.
Reason #2:  To play this game by myself or against other Matrix forum members.
 
The reason I wrote OPPOSING is important to note. If reason #1 doesn't work out for me, I might still be interested in this game if meets most of my selfish requirements.
 
I am looking for a slower paced game not only for myself but for certain friends and family members who I know have at least a little bit of interest in WW II type of combat games. The kind of person I am talking about is someone who has watched every episode of BoB on the History Channel and now thinks they know something about WW II combat. I am currently looking for a game that not only these people will play but something I will enjoy playing as well. A FPS game is out of the question. I am an ex BUSINESS software developer and my wrist tends to start hurting when I use the mouse for an extended period of time. While I find CM to be a fun game, I would NEVER think of trying to convince my friends or family members to play that game.  I consider CM to be more of a very abstract historical simulation than a game your average war gamer would be interested in playing more than once. 
 
I realize that my initial review is really not a fair and objective opinion because I purposely chose not to read the manual before trying to play the demo. While initial impressions are not all that important to me, having worked in the software field for many years I do know that for many people it truly is a BIG deal. Anyway, I started out by banging on the keyboard because I wanted to see how easy it would be for a computer/game neophyte to start playing this game without doing a lot of reading. A lot of my friends have a short attention span. In other words, they respond first and foremost to cool looking graphics and only worry about gameplay after the initial coolness factor wears off. This is why in my first post I mentioned that my internal comments (where I was talking to myself) should be taken with a grain of salt. I figured if I am having a difficult time figuring out how the commands and GUI work then there is probably little hope that the people I would want to introduce this game to would give it chance.
 

This is actually the first time I've heard this exact comment. Many folks have commented on the similarities, but fewer on the differences, which I agree are substantial. That's not a bad thing though, IMHO.

 
Agreed. My comments on wanting Panzer Command to be more like CM or to be a better version of CM are purely selfish. As you already know, CM is a dead game. While Battlefront may still sell all three versions of that game, they have long since moved on. Imo, there really aren't that many tactical WW II games on the market that are both fun to play and that also try to be realistic. I not only want this game to thrive I want other similar games such as ToW to do well. ToW seems to have a good chance simply because the developers have been working on that game for over five years!
 

I think the main advantage CM had in this regard was the in-game hotkey reference. Other than that, I find the interfaces about the same in terms of complexity. Did you find the mini-map or OOB display helpful?

 
Yup, I sure did. This game has CC type of features that I wish had been put into CM. In many ways your interface is much better than Close Combat's or Combat Mission's. That said, this game has some cool features that aren't in either of the above mentioned games. Like most gamers I am selfish greedy bastard. [:)]
 

... For the official demo, we'll include the hotkey reference separately and also a walk-through for new players.

 
Glad to hear this. I only played version two of Close Combat, however, I really liked some of the help features that came with that game. FYI, CC2 was the game that actually turned me on to WW II PC games. I think it is only fair to tell you that when I bought CC in 1999 I also purchased the strategy guide at the same time. I think it is important to mention this because I didn't just pick up that game and start playing it well. The same is somewhat true of CM as well. I ONLY found CM to be easy to START playing badly. CM is not a player friendly game. In other words, CM might be easy to play badly, but it is dam difficult to play well. While it might take years to play CM well, I don't think this is the case with Panther Command.
 

Good point from the CM perspective, although in CM this is necessary....

 
Agreed. That said, I do what to mention that I was trying a whole lot of stuff that I didn't bother to post. While lassoing units is a feature that is fairly common in many games that doesn't mean it is needed in this game. Some of my prejudice comes from being a business software developer. Perhaps game development is very different in this respect, however, in BSD one of the unwritten laws of GUI design is that you make your application look and feel like other well known programs unless there is a very good reason not to do so. 
 

That I can't answer for you, when I tell Tank #2 to move, it moves.

 
Yeah, I am not sure what the deal was there. For whatever reason when I would select a unit it would occasionally lose it's stickiness and in process of selecting a command another unit would get selected. My guess is that the tanks in the platoon were so close to each other that I must have accidentally selected another tank sometime during the unit command selection process.
 

Pathfinding could be improved, granted, but usually if the path veers it's not veering towards trees but away (it tries to choose the path of least resistance). We also have on the list to add a waypoint or two, or at least an option to choose a covered path, shortest path, fastest path, etc.

 
Well, the demo is on a separate hard disk partition (because of the .NET framework installation requirement), so, I can't currently post a screen shot. Imo, what was happening was not the shortest path to the objective thing instead it looked to me like the AI was trying to use the trees as cover. I have only read a couple of the previous posts made in this forum, however, it is my understanding that using shorter waypoints is the way to gain more control over unit movement.
 

Absolutely possible. You can set an order for your platoon like Engage and then tell two tanks to take a different path.

 
Good to hear.
 

Look for "Withdraw" in the orders menu. 

 
Will do.
 

Shift key + mouse move 

 
Yup. I did read the first couple of pages of the manual but ONLY after trying to figure out how to play the game without any help first.
 

Thanks for the feedback and please do check out the official demo once it's released. 

 
Definitely will do and thanks for taking my initial criticism so well. I really hope this game does well. 

P.S. Congrats on winning the Intel competition.