Having another look at PC...

[Bullman]

Hello

I believe the CMx1 series of games are the best tactical WW2 combat games ever made. Unfortunately BF have gone down the sad road of the 1:1 RTS depiction bandwagon with CMx2 and have abandoned all plans of developing the WeGo CMx1 scope/scale/idea/concept any further.

The versatility of CMx1 engine with its map/scenario editor and huge unit list was what really gave the game such potential and life. Maps as large as 4.4km x 4.4km down to 240m x 240m could be created to simulate all kinds/scopes of battles and scales of combat.

I am therefore looking at PC:K coming from this perspective. I remember trying the original PC demo but wasn't impressed. Why would I bother with PC when CMx1 was much better anyways. Now with the CMx1 series never to be developed further, I am looking at where Matrix are heading with the PC series.

A few questions:

Is it correct that PC:K battles are limited to 1km x 1 km maps? If so this is a major neg. What credibility can a WW2 combat game that uses promo lines like "A variety of new maps that are both historically accurate for the Kharkov campaign also combine to give a representative variety of Eastern Front terrain" have when it's maps are just 1km x 1km?

Is it more accurate and correct to be comparing BFs Theatre of War to PC, rather than CMx1 to PC? Both ToW and PC look very similar and look like they are trying to be the same kind of game, though ToW is RTS. Is it just the RTS that makes ToW essentially any different?

I am not too impressed with the visuals in the screenshots given it could be argued they look no better than a poor graphically modded CMBO game from 2001. Can the "skins" in PC be readily modded like those in CMx1 so that the low quality stock professionally created "skins"/interfaces that come with the game can be replaced by superb higher quality and detail skins made by amatuer fans, such as what ended up being the case for CMx1?

Cheers

Bull

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Bullman
Is it more accurate and correct to be comparing BFs Theatre of War to PC, rather than CMx1 to PC? Both ToW and PC look very similar and look like they are trying to be the same kind of game, though ToW is RTS. Is it just the RTS that makes ToW essentially any different?

No. Both CMx1 and PC are squad level games. Individual soldiers aren't represented as in Tow. PC is turn based where you give orders to platoons of units.

[freeboy]

We discussed the ability to mod larger maps as well, and while not directly supported, you could change the tables and in effect enlarge the mapos from what I understand .. as I was thinking of 1km maps as silly for eastern front armor combat after 42 and ask a similar ?

[JudgeDredd]

I am not too impressed with the visuals in the screenshots given it could be argued they look no better than a poor graphically modded CMBO game from 2001. Can the "skins" in PC be readily modded like those in CMx1 so that the low quality stock professionally created "skins"/interfaces that come with the game can be replaced by superb higher quality and detail skins made by amatuer fans, such as what ended up being the case for CMx1?

Bullman

Someone is working on those skins and putting a lot of time and effort into it. Presumably, they are doing the best they can. They may not be to your liking and you may find them poor, but did you really have to point it out in such a manner?

In particular

...so that the low quality stock professionally created "skins"/interfaces

and

...be replaced by superb higher quality and detail skins made by amatuer fans

I'm a little less thick skinned than most, so most wouldn't find any fault with what you've written, but a simpler can the modded skins be imported easily would have got the same point across without being rather rude to the person who is actually doing the art.

[JudgeDredd]

But I agree with your point about maps...I do hope they are larger than 1kmsq

[Erik Rutins]

Hi Bullman,

Thanks for taking a second look at Panzer Command. I feel that in this upcoming release, it surpasses CM in some areas while still lagging in a few others, but our goal is to be the best. If you want to see more of where we're heading, pick up a copy and we will certainly continue to put our best effort into improving it further while taking feedback into account.

ORIGINAL: Bullman
Is it correct that PC:K battles are limited to 1km x 1 km maps? If so this is a major neg. What credibility can a WW2 combat game that uses promo lines like "A variety of new maps that are both historically accurate for the Kharkov campaign also combine to give a representative variety of Eastern Front terrain" have when it's maps are just 1km x 1km?

That's correct, maps are currently limited to 1km x 1km. Expanding them in size is one of our top items for future work. In the meantime, the 1km square maps work quite well for most battles short of tank vs. tank duels on the steppe and even those work fairly well. The promo line is also sincere - the maps are both historically accurate and representative of East Front terrain. I agree it would be good to have larger maps though, but a tremendous amount of historical tactical wargaming fun can be had at the existing scale.

Is it more accurate and correct to be comparing BFs Theatre of War to PC, rather than CMx1 to PC? Both ToW and PC look very similar and look like they are trying to be the same kind of game, though ToW is RTS. Is it just the RTS that makes ToW essentially any different?

No, I would say not. Panzer Command is a classic tactical wargame in its design, with a 3D engine for visuals. It does not aim to go the same route as TOW or CMx2 as far as individual infantry, real-time or focusing on physics vs. modeling.

I am not too impressed with the visuals in the screenshots given it could be argued they look no better than a poor graphically modded CMBO game from 2001. Can the "skins" in PC be readily modded like those in CMx1 so that the low quality stock professionally created "skins"/interfaces that come with the game can be replaced by superb higher quality and detail skins made by amatuer fans, such as what ended up being the case for CMx1?

Hm - I played CMBO a LOT and modded it up with every available mod. I've heard this comment a few times so I loaded up my fully modded copy of CMBO and compared it. Frankly, I don't think it compares, but to each his own I suppose. And the unmodded CMBO's visuals - don't get me started. My memory of it was much kinder than the reality. Note that I love the CM series, I just sincerely think (and have looked at them side by side) that Panzer Command looks much better.

With that said, everything is moddable. You can mod everything you see, from map textures and models to vehicle and infantry models and textures, as long as you have the skill, time and (in some cases) the requisite software (for 3D modeling). You can also adjust the stats and specs of the units if you feel that we've rated them incorrectly, etc.

Regards,

- Erik

[freeboy]

perhaps it is the visuals of the "page" here .. the reselution of the pix may be lower..

[Mobius]

To answer the skin question.  Tanks usually come set to use a default 512x512 graphical skin file.  They also include a more highly detailed 1024x1024 skin file for those who have more powerful boxes.  You copy over the default skin file with the higher graphics skin file for finer graphics.  Or you can make mods to this file.

[freeboy]

maybe in patches xxx we could have a toggle for players to sellect, " hi res tanks " not every one knows what a skin, or a in folder file looks like.. no offense and I certainly think an easy walk through could help even the most computer challenged.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

This may just be a matter of preference, but I find the graphics in Panzer Command to be superior to those in the initial series of Combat Mission games. The latter always struck me as an attempt to render a miniatures game on a computer. The infantry, in particular, was perfectly ghastly.

On the other hand, I see PCx graphics as being much more like those found in other 3D games. It's also possible to create high-resolution models in PC, the examples of which I've seen could be fairly characterized as rather more than simply "good."

I'm not suggesting that anyone should buy a wargame because of it's graphics, but I definitely think that it's wrong to assert that PC is deficient in this regard, particularly when compared to the much older graphics engine of it's much older wargaming cousin.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[ravinhood]

How many infantrymen are going to be visible per infantry unit? Three? Five? All of them? I hope it's not just one and 10 men are attached to it. I would prefer all of them, but, I'm pretty certain we ain't gonna get that like we do in Steel Panthers.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
How many infantrymen are going to be visible per infantry unit? Three? Five? All of them? I hope it's not just one and 10 men are attached to it. I would prefer all of them, but, I'm pretty certain we ain't gonna get that like we do in Steel Panthers.

There's a "Limit Infantry" option. If "on" you see three guys per squad. If "off" you see five. This is primarily an option for graphical performance. If you want to see the full number, that's possible by adding some guys into the squad XML file, which is a simple edit. We stuck with five as the high number just because of the average system specs we've seen from players of Winter Storm.

[ravinhood]

That's really great so we can put how many figures we want to see using XML files like Civ IV. Ok, so one more question how many different graphical LOOKING figures did you make for the units? 3? 5? 10? different ones?

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
That's really great so we can put how many figures we want to see using XML files like Civ IV. Ok, so one more question how many different graphical LOOKING figures did you make for the units? 3? 5? 10? different ones?

Well, for infantry you've got guys with rifles, submachine guns and, light machine guns. Some have basic uniforms, others have uniforms plus greatcoats or packs, others have winter weather uniforms, etc. so there's some variation.

Regards,

- Erik

[ravinhood]

I noticed you said there are things you think that are better than CM series and some things you still think you are lacking. What are those things you think you are lacking in with this version? Also, I'm one of those that really hates that games progress with better features leaving some of the more nostalgic games behind (like BF did CMBO when they added new features to CMBB and CMAK). Did you ever think of creating "expansion paks" for say Kharkov AND Operation Winter Storm that added these features you are leaving out of Kharkov now? I think many people wouldn't be adverse to paying for an expansion pak that keeps ALL the games in the series playing out the same or near the same. Do you plan to expand the Panzer Command series into the Pacific Theater/Africa/Western Front?

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
I noticed you said there are things you think that are better than CM series and some things you still think you are lacking. What are those things you think you are lacking in with this version?

Well, that's not really my job. [;)] But sure, since I think it's a fair question given my comment. The CM series has a tremendous amount of depth - even with Kharkov's additional development time, they spent a LOT more time in development than we have so far (though we're catching up). So I see a few key areas where we still need to improve. The first is the number of unit types - we're much better than we were in Winter Storm, but we still need more coverage on Eastern Front units and of course we still need to get to the Western Front. In map size, we need to get to at least 2km x 2km maps by the next release and we also need to make a full map editor available as part of the next set of designers' tools. We made huge strides in improving the design tools for this release, but more can be done there with more development. More terrain types will come with new theaters, but we also need to add more art to our assets for the next release to make the maps even better looking and make those available to folks together with the map editor. We're shipping a "scene editor" with Kharkov, which allows you to decorate and customize the existing maps, but it's a pretty primitive tool compared to the other editing tools so that's an area to work on.

With that said, I think it the gist of it comes down to a few design improvements and then a lot of adding of content. I don't see anything that would be a major problem, just a matter of development time.

Also, I'm one of those that really hates that games progress with better features leaving some of the more nostalgic games behind (like BF did CMBO when they added new features to CMBB and CMAK). Did you ever think of creating "expansion paks" for say Kharkov AND Operation Winter Storm that added these features you are leaving out of Kharkov now?

Well, we made sure that all the Winter Storm scenarios were updated to work with Kharkov and if you own Winter Storm and install Kharkov on the same system, Kharkov will install a set of updated Winter Storm scenarios that you can play with the new engine to enjoy all the updated features.

Do you plan to expand the Panzer Command series into the Pacific Theater/Africa/Western Front?

Provided folks keep supporting us by purchasing copies of the Panzer Command series, we are happy to expand it into all theaters of World War II. I would say at this point that the Western Front would be next. We would also like to keep improving the campaign functionality to get it to the point of being able to do everything the special SP Mega-Campaigns could do and more.

Regards,

- Erik