Matrix Games Forums

Great. I'm one of the old Wild Bill's Raider and waiting a decade for a game as tactical flexible-accurate and strategical massive-fun (the great weakness of Combat mission) as was the glorious SP. Now I find it! [:D]

I see, after a couple of gaming days, only limited flaws, in the eye candy, like better destroyed tanks icons, craters and building damage that I feel will be implemented.

I dislike the " official" style of the units in the verbose report . 29 div 8/2/2/3. Not intuitive to understand the difference with the 29 div 8/2/2/1. My problem.

I noticed more than once in every battle a whole infantry squad wiped out with a single burst, no they don't are rushing. I understand that could happen in an a very well done ambush at point-blank, but not, in game terms, with a single volley from distance, when they are moving on the battlefield aware that the battle is started. So a question. Could have in the future an order that give to the single squad a "bounding" behavior simulating single man moving in leaps or a "sparse" behavior to minimize the risk of concentrate fire or artilery barrage. I think this is now incorporated on the internal mech of the Rush/advance/defend/bound order but , may be, it needs a little adjustment.

Last. The Campaign/battle generator seems to be astounding in flexibility[&o]. I don't see anyway, the tool to create a game on a specific unit. For exemple a nashorn platton for an Albert Ernst campaign.

Great Job guys!

It is a great game despite your misgiving's.

Regards,

Greg

I found this quite odd too, and a little frustrating. However, I thought about it a bit more after a 'KIA' squad was reformed after the battle. I wonder if there is a representation of a unit totally losing cohesion and falling apart?
 
Random example: popular NCO gets killed and two or three guys get wounded. Do the rest of the squad pick up the injured and head to the rear to get them treated?
 
Though I have only seen this happen at close quarters with veteran troops, I have seen green Soviet squads get taken out with one HE shot from range. I guess the game factors in things like green troops tending to bunch up and present an easier target.

ORIGINAL: FNG
However, I thought about it a bit more after a 'KIA' squad was reformed after the battle. I wonder if there is a representation of a unit totally losing cohesion and falling apart?
Random example: popular NCO gets killed and two or three guys get wounded. Do the rest of the squad pick up the injured and head to the rear to get them treated?

Yes, a squad being "destroyed" in the context of the tacticla battle timeframe is intended to model any event that makes the squad "combat ineffective" for the rest of the battle. That's why we do allow a decent chance for "destroyed" infantry squads to reform after a battle, that resiliecy is actually one of the strengths of infantry in a campaign setting.

Though I have only seen this happen at close quarters with veteran troops, I have seen green Soviet squads get taken out with one HE shot from range. I guess the game factors in things like green troops tending to bunch up and present an easier target.

Yes, Green troops are much more likely to be wiped out in one shot, Veterans less and Elites even less. Also, team-sized elements are more likely to be wiped out than to take casualty steps, whereas full squads are more likely to takecasualty steps.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: massimorocca
Great. I'm one of the old Wild Bill's Raider and waiting a decade for a game as tactical flexible-accurate and strategical massive-fun (the great weakness of Combat mission) as was the glorious SP. Now I find it! [:D]

Thank you, Massimo - I'm glad you're having fun with PCK!

I see, after a couple of gaming days, only limited flaws, in the eye candy, like better destroyed tanks icons, craters and building damage that I feel will be implemented.

Yes, these are all on our wish list.

I dislike the " official" style of the units in the verbose report . 29 div 8/2/2/3. Not intuitive to understand the difference with the 29 div 8/2/2/1. My problem.

Some of the naming varies by scenario designer and the random battles also have their own naming system. What's your preferred naming convention?

I noticed more than once in every battle a whole infantry squad wiped out with a single burst, no they don't are rushing. I understand that could happen in an a very well done ambush at point-blank, but not, in game terms, with a single volley from distance, when they are moving on the battlefield aware that the battle is started. So a question. Could have in the future an order that give to the single squad a "bounding" behavior simulating single man moving in leaps or a "sparse" behavior to minimize the risk of concentrate fire or artilery barrage. I think this is now incorporated on the internal mech of the Rush/advance/defend/bound order but , may be, it needs a little adjustment.

See my comments above - I'm also working on a detailed orders chart to show all the various modifiers by order type. In short, Defend -> Move is the "safest" (and slowest) form of movement. Advance is basically your happy medium and Rush makes you much more vulnerable although faster.

[quoteLast. The Campaign/battle generator seems to be astounding in flexibility[&o]. I don't see anyway, the tool to create a game on a specific unit. For exemple a nashorn platton for an Albert Ernst campaign.[/quote]

Yes, it's quite possible, but you need to get into the XML files. Have a look at the documentation addendums on the RCG/RBG and let us know if yu have any questions.

Regards,

- Erik

Erik, I'm tied with the old Sp naming convention. May be is an aging factor, but "campaigning" I care more about Sergent Rolf Steiner than 8/2/2[:D]

ORIGINAL: massimorocca

Erik, I'm tied with the old Sp naming convention. May be is an aging factor, but "campaigning" I care more about Sergent Rolf Steiner than 8/2/2[:D]

Same for me here... I find it a bit hard immersing myself in the campaign and keeping track of my troops with the current naming convention (it probably looks more like a series of loosely connected scenarios than a real campaign to me). I think it would be improved with real names!

ORIGINAL: boulou

ORIGINAL: massimorocca

Erik, I'm tied with the old Sp naming convention. May be is an aging factor, but "campaigning" I care more about Sergent Rolf Steiner than 8/2/2[:D]

Same for me here... I find it a bit hard immersing myself in the campaign and keeping track of my troops with the current naming convention (it probably looks more like a series of loosely connected scenarios than a real campaign to me). I think it would be improved with real names!

I've been struggling with this as well - though just getting accustomed to mentally trying to enunciate what the numbers are helps me. ie - 8th Plt/ 2nd Co./II Bn/ 534th Rgt - Although not sure Bn number shows up, and I know some battles have a Brigade number.

In any event, It will be nice in next game in series to have some individual leader units.

In another game I'm playing, you have the ability to actually go in and name the (or change the name of) units on the fly. Of course not sure how this would work in a campaign setting.

Now I'm just rambling -

Thanks
Rick

Actually it's mine problem too, but I didn't want it to mention. I just can't interpret 2/3/1/114 in the heat of the replay.

ORIGINAL: boulou

ORIGINAL: massimorocca

Erik, I'm tied with the old Sp naming convention. May be is an aging factor, but "campaigning" I care more about Sergent Rolf Steiner than 8/2/2[:D]

Same for me here... I find it a bit hard immersing myself in the campaign and keeping track of my troops with the current naming convention (it probably looks more like a series of loosely connected scenarios than a real campaign to me). I think it would be improved with real names!

A real battle campaign is a series of loosely connected battles. Sometimes they are during a short time frame and sometimes not.

I have been experimenting making battles using names instead of unit designations and that does seem to make a difference in the immersion factor...but then my scenarios are known for their immersion factor....

Good Hunting.

MR

The regiment number is the smallest "unique" identifier in WWII military designations.  This number needs to be there.  Unfortunately, to get down to the squad level you have to list all the subordinate formations between regiment and squad to have any sense of historical accuracy.  Without tying-in to the regiment, any other designation is meaningless.  And further unfortunately, there is only so much space in the game to type a unit's label.  A "name" without the historical chain of subordination up to the regiment would be useless and meaningless from a historical viewpoint.
 
So, what I'm saying is that while some further data or identifiers could be fitted in, it's all a necessary "evil", so to speak.  Try to "relate" to your units as combat units and not as dramatic personae.

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

The regiment number is the smallest "unique" identifier in WWII military designations. This number needs to be there. Unfortunately, to get down to the squad level you have to list all the subordinate formations between regiment and squad to have any sense of historical accuracy. Without tying-in to the regiment, any other designation is meaningless. And further unfortunately, there is only so much space in the game to type a unit's label. A "name" without the historical chain of subordination up to the regiment would be useless and meaningless from a historical viewpoint.

So, what I'm saying is that while some further data or identifiers could be fitted in, it's all a necessary "evil", so to speak. Try to "relate" to your units as combat units and not as dramatic personae.

So then.....if I'm doing a scenario that features the panzer ace Michael Wittmann and I name him the scenario you don't think that you would understand that he's a apart of the 1st SS Panzer Division and all the supporting documentation I give you in the briefings are worthless then?

I personally don't think thats the case.

I think what gamers are wanting in the immersion level from past tactical wargaming experiences brought out in PC as well. The whole unit numbering and tracking loses that in the details.

As a platoon or company commander you don't think our your platoon leaders as 1/1/1/481 Gren Rgt. You think of him as John and his fate is important to you. 1/1/1/381 Gren Rgt. while important from an overall viewpoint is important in a different way.

You aren't attached to that number like you may very be when Unterscharfuhrer Wittmann gets the call to tackle 18 Soviet tanks by himself. Or with Sgt. Poole leading the 3rd Armored Division attack towards Germany...or anyone of thousands of other combats that may be highlighted in the battles and campaigns we fight.

Remember Cpl Steiner from SL? Why is that? Would you remember him if he were identified as 1/1/1/381 Gren Rgt.?

And then there's the issue of who it is when they start getting run together as well....where exactly is 1/1/1/381 Gren Rgt. compared to 1/1/2/381 Gren Rgt. or was that 2/1/1/381 Gren Rgt. I really forget.......

IMO, personalized naming brings back some of the connection that moving up the command chain to Company and Battalion Commander takes away.

Good Hunting.

MR

I am all for unit commander names to be included. To follow on from MR's example, 1/1/1/381 Gren Rgt. Sgt. Steiner, 1/1/2/381 Gren Rgt. Sgt. Uhl and 2/1/1/381 Gren Rgt. Leut. Schmidt is far more immersive and memorable for me.

Part of the issue in PC is that leaders may well not stay with the same squad as combat takes place and losses occur. So naming the particular platoon leader on the squad label may not represent what's actually happening in PC.

But it would still help.

At least I think it would....I intend on trying to do some naming in my scenarios. We'll see how well it works.

Good Hunting.

MR

Quandry - Because I actually agree with both Capitanne and MR - I like having names - I get attached to them - But I think the organizational structure is important to have in mind as well. Because I'm concerned with keeping the 3rd Platoon combat effective for the NEXT battle.

But knowing what the numbers actually mean is important - I posted a while back about the standard way for numbering "naming" - and the response I got helps - but I'm not sure it's applied consistently.

Perhaps if the next scenario introduces individual leaders - at least the name part will take care of itself - but the unit designation is still important to me.

Rick

Development idea: introduce a 'leader slot' to each unit. Each unit then has its own inherent abilities and awards, but gains a 'leadership layer', for good or bad (remember the German officer in SL who had a negative modifer? [:)]). Leaders could gains their own benefits and flaws as time goes by.
 
As an aside, this could also add an interesting aspect to snipers by giving them a % chance to kill a leader when they suppress and/or cause casualties to a unit. So even if 2/1/1/381 Gren Rgt. survives a battle, Leut. Schmidt may have been killed by a sniper and a less skilled replacement promoted/provided.
 
I think something along these lines would be an excellent addition to the campaign game, as it maintains the organisational structure but would give us named pixeltruppen to care for [;)]

ORIGINAL: Rick

Quandry - Because I actually agree with both Capitanne and MR - I like having names - I get attached to them - But I think the organizational structure is important to have in mind as well. Because I'm concerned with keeping the 3rd Platoon combat effective for the NEXT battle.

But knowing what the numbers actually mean is important - I posted a while back about the standard way for numbering "naming" - and the response I got helps - but I'm not sure it's applied consistently.

Perhaps if the next scenario introduces individual leaders - at least the name part will take care of itself - but the unit designation is still important to me.

Rick

But if you're just worried about how the unit is doing you can look at the OOB display and it shows you which units are taking heavy losses. Possibly adding a color coding to the infantry units to denote the state of their current health would be helpful.

This kind of goes outside the realm of what PC is though. No Platoon leader would know the status of his squads at every second without going and looking personally. That is absolutely true of the company commander.

A little bit of anxiety in the game is good for immersion. That can included that you get involved enough with your pixel truppen that you go see how they are doing.......

Possibly have the HUD/Event panel display either the leader names or the organization.

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

This kind of goes outside the realm of what PC is though. No Platoon leader would know the status of his squads at every second without going and looking personally. That is absolutely true of the company commander.

But wouldn't the platoons themselves know what their own status was? [;)] You're not just the company commander, you're the platoon commanders, too...