PCO Add Ons

[Firebri]

Is there any news yet ?

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Panzerbri

Is there any news yet ?

I'm afraid I don't have anything yet I can share with you. I will say that we have stepped up our work, but we really aren't far enough along to be able to provide more details.

Sorry,
rick

[Firebri]

Cheers for that Rick. Also are there any plans to make a modern day title ?

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Panzerbri

Cheers for that Rick. Also are there any plans to make a modern day title ?

It's been mentioned in some of the team discusions, but I wouldn't go so far as to say there are any plans. Some others on the team might want to comment on this though.

Thanks
rick

[Mad Russian]

There are a couple of vehicle models that have been made but I don't think all the rules etc for a modern version are in place yet...of course, with this group you never know. [:D]

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mobius]

I made a T-54 model but haven't finished the LODs yet. Started an M-48 foir it to play with but got sidetracked. So nothing from me yet.

[Firebri]

Or is there another title planned for the PC series ?

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Panzerbri

Or is there another title planned for the PC series ?

Erik is probably in the best position to respond, but the team is still actively working on some things for PCO and are discussing the things we would like to see added in both expansion packs and in the next game in the series.

Thanks
rick

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[Harriet61]

I'm afraid I don't have anything yet I can share with you.

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[Ratzki]

How about giving us some things to chew on one at a time. Anything that you guys might be working on for the next game in the series. if it was kept to just one thing at a time or so we might like to have some say about it. You guys could be putting alot of thought into something that many of us do not care about or vise-versa. Maybe discuss what we would like to see from the infantry combat model, or whathave you. It would give us all something to chat about and we might just come up with a good idea. We would know that nothing is etched in stone, but I think that it would keep the interest up.

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

How about giving us some things to chew on one at a time. Anything that you guys might be working on for the next game in the series. if it was kept to just one thing at a time or so we might like to have some say about it. You guys could be putting alot of thought into something that many of us do not care about or vise-versa. Maybe discuss what we would like to see from the infantry combat model, or whathave you. It would give us all something to chat about and we might just come up with a good idea. We would know that nothing is etched in stone, but I think that it would keep the interest up.

You make a good point Ratzki. We haven't put anything in stone for the next game yet. We do want to "improve" the infantry model though. We have given some consideration to making some significant changes to the orders system as well. But we haven't made firm design decisions yet.

We're always open to any ideas you, or others might have in those areas, or other areas you think are critical.

Thanks
rick

[Ratzki]

Well, not ever having been in the military, I have a question on infantry orders. What would a Company Commander that was part of a larger formation have control over, more to the point how much leway would he have to modify orders to take an objective as time went on and situations changed? I was just thinking that it might be interesting to be able to say what objectives the player thought that he would be able to take with what Companies/units that he had at his disposal. The player would be acting as the overall Commander at this point. Points would then be based on these objectives being controlled or not with +/- bonuses for each extra flag taken or fewer points for not taking the prestated objectives. Now where I was going was a leveled type orders menu based on rank, Company, Platoon, Section Commander, that would mimic the the appropriate choices each might have to make.

Just a start here, anyone else?

[junk2drive]

For computer games, you have an AI that handles things that you do not control. You tell a unit to move over there and the AI handles the move, plus actionary and reactionary items along the way. If this all happens in a believable way, we are immersed and happy. The farther up the command scale you go, without changing the unit level, the more you need to get from your AI for you vision of orders to act out in a believable manner. I don't think computers are at that level yet.

[Ratzki]

I understand but was not intending on letting the AI handle too much. I will slip into what I did not like about the infantry commands in CM. CM allowed the player control right down to the section level. But I think that the shortfall of going this route is that you lose some of the immersion as each player seemed to be able to react instantly to battlefield situations as they occured, for example; an enemy AT gun would fire on an approaching tank. Within 1 minute, all units able to do so were ordered to fire on the AT gun, often destroying it before any real damage could be done by the AT gun. The player might have been thinking I'll get Co. A over to that hill as quickly as possible, Co. B will stay conceled untill I am ready to lanch an attack when Co. A gets into position. The Enemy AT gun gets off one shot half way through the round and immediately the first player is able to halt all of Co. A and return fire, at the same time, Co. B is quickly ordered to engage the AT gun along with mortar fire and whatever else the player can bring to bare on the enemy gun.
I like the ability to move my platoons and sections, but would feel that some form of Chain of Command restrictions to orders might help with this situation.

[rickier65]

allowing players just the right amount of control over units is a tough line to walk. each player has there own ideas of where that line should be. And some of us (like myself) change our minds. That is one of the reasons for the way orders are modeled right now.

I do think we want to have some kind of command and control structure, perhaps with wome incentives or penalties if squads are too far from their command unit.

Rick

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Ratzki
I understand but was not intending on letting the AI handle too much. I will slip into what I did not like about the infantry commands in CM. CM allowed the player control right down to the section level. But I think that the shortfall of going this route is that you lose some of the immersion as each player seemed to be able to react instantly to battlefield situations as they occured,

"hear, hear!"

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

I like the ability to move my platoons and sections, but would feel that some form of Chain of Command restrictions to orders might help with this situation.

An actual working chain of command instead of leaders that just run around cheering on the action is a novel idea in it's own right.

Good Hunting.


MR

[Ratzki]

I think that immersion in the game is important, but there are many ways to become immersed in the action on the screen. Would it not work to have the player(s) take the role of the top tiered commander(s) and assign Companies/Platoons/Squads/Sections to objectives that they figure can be controlled at the end of the battle. This would be the overall battle plan and would have to have more detail with reguards to OOB at different levels. It would also require the player to be able to assign smaller units to fromations. Then when the battle starts, there would be one or more on screen subordinate on screen Commanders that would then command their Companies and give general commands such as moving quickly, or provide covering fire for example. Units within their chain of command would be totally controlled by the player but may have some command options greyed out based on the Co. Commander's orders. So if a unit was ordered to move quickly by the Co. Commander it could still return fire if an enemy was spotted, but might not be able to halt and then shoot for x number of turns. There would be other actions that it could perform but all might be influenced in some way by the orders of the Company Commander.
I know that PC does somewhat address this with the reaction phase, but it still does not feel right to me. On the flip side if the Co. Commander has given a general order like described above, there could be bonnuses given for units that are following the general orders, eg. The unit given the covering fire order might get a bunus for firing at an enemy without the need to reposition/move.
Just talking off the top of my head here.