comTo any who enjoyed the 'Combat Mission' games

[sapper_astro]

I have a question.

What are, in your opinion, the main differences between this game and the Combat mission games? Since there haven't been many reviews, and i can see no demo available (not that i could use it anyway, I have dialup), I have had enough of waiting around and decided to see what the users have thought.

I personally enjoy Combat Mission, though the lack of a campaign has been a major down side to me. Ultimately I would want a game similar to Combat mission, with better offensive AI and a campaign where your troops gain experience as each scenario unfolds....Like the old Close Combats to a degree.

I had heard this game had those things but I have also heard the game is quite short. Depending on how short it is, thats not too much of a bother as long as the game is a clear improvement over Combat mission.

So, if anyone here enjoys the Combat mission games, and have this game, then please tell me how you would compare the two and whether this game is worth buying if one already owns the combat mission games.

[Tomus]

I prefer PzCommand tbh. The orders are more simplified than CM, so the flow of play is quicker.

Also I prefer the single campaign area rather than trying to cover too much ground that CM Tended to do, also the missions are ordered in a linear fashion and as a result medals, exp, losses and gains carry over to the next mission. There are only 5 per side which does seem a little stingy.

Also for me, I found I would get an hour or two hours into a CM game and then realise that the mission was buggered up and either spent a lot of time restarting or reloading. In PZCommand I find myself hanging on till the last to see if I can squeeze a victory.

Its a weird one, in between CM and say Squad Assault. There is work that needs doing definitely and is being patched up.

My advice, wait for the patch, see what everyone says and then take a look.

[Laryngoscope]

sapper_astro,

Check the forum posts from about one month ago, there was much talk then about PzC vs CM.

In summary (advantages of each)

PzCommand:

- Is based on the panzer war micro rules; see www.panzer-war.com which has had nearly 20 years of playtesting
- Hence more abstract (esp inf.) than CM (this is good and bad depending on your view)
- Has a UI + camera control from the 21st century (ie. quick easy user friendly)
- Has very good defensive AI.
- Has a reasonably good offensive AI, better than CM but obviously not human. I have seen it do some pretty clever things on the attack, but at the end of the day I think it very very very very hard to write a human tactical AI at this level.
- Has improved graphics, certainly good enough to suspend disbelief more than CM which I found the colour palette was too 'primary'. I always felt I was fighting in a cartoon in CM [;)] No sprites!
- Has a campaign system, core units carry over with exp + medals etc
- Has a PBEM system with 2 emails / turn rather than 6 for CM
- Orders are given at the platoon level, but can be modified at the squad level if desired
- All data files in xml so easy to modify, should be helpful for the community to expand future functionality
- 40 second order / 40 second reaction phases ??? toss up advantage

CM:

- All of the eastern front in one box!
- Has complex modelling of ballistics / armour /weight etc etc for some things at any rate, whether this is better vs a statistical distribution model, is a personal choice.
- Inbuilt map/scenario editor
- More of just about everything (rules/options/scenarios/units/maps/etc etc)
- Lower machine specs
- A much larger community following
- fixed 60 second phases ??? toss up advantage
- maps > 1 sq km
- All seasons playable, they don't call it Panzer Command 'Winter Storm' for nothing [:D] (this will certainly change in the future however)

If you play all the missions in PzC, you are looking at about 15 - 20 hours of play time. A free editor has been released which allows you to pretty easily design your own scenarios / campaigns and I expect to see more of them after the patch which is due shortly (ie within days)

Now as to whether the game is worth buying if you already have CM, well that really is a personal choice. If you would like to play a good looking, easy to use eastern front tactical game with some abstractions, yet still good enough to get historical outcomes, then Panzer Command is certainly worth it.

Matrix has stated that a demo will be released at some point in the near future, so the best advice if you are still unsure is to wait until then.

[Tim Snoddy]

I know this is a bit of a cheek on the Matrix site but have you looked at Theatre of War? It is being touted by battlefront as a successor to Combat Mission. It is pausable real time like Total War. It certainly doesn't lool like a clickfest. Battlefront say they will be using the same system in Combat Mission 2 with an optional WEGO system. There is a masive after action report on Sim HQ accessible through the Battlefront site.

[sapper_astro]

I will wait until the patch comes out and see what it adds, and then, depending on the content of patch, and when ToW is coming out (Its on my hitlist for sure, unless its hyped to hell...). If patch is sweet, and ToW is a while away (anyone heard when its due?) I think I will buy this game.

Thanks for your opions though. Its great to hear what players think who have enjoyed both games.

If you wish to air any other thoughts, by all means do so, im interested in reading them.

[Erik Rutins]

Tim,

ORIGINAL: Tim Snoddy
I know this is a bit of a cheek on the Matrix site but have you looked at Theatre of War? It is being touted by battlefront as a successor to Combat Mission. It is pausable real time like Total War. It certainly doesn't lool like a clickfest. Battlefront say they will be using the same system in Combat Mission 2 with an optional WEGO system. There is a masive after action report on Sim HQ accessible through the Battlefront site.

We prefer that you post stuff like this in the General Discussion forum, rather than on a thread about a different product.

With that said, as far as I know, Theater of War is different in many ways from CM and Panzer Command. It's not the same engine as CM or CM2 at all, but what was formerly known as Wartime Command when under development for UbiSoft. It's a real-time game and it looks phenomenal graphically, but it remains to be seen if whether it will really fall in the realm of Combat Mission or Panzer Command in terms of realism, or more in the area of Company of Heroes.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

Sapper Astro,

ORIGINAL: sapper_astro
I will wait until the patch comes out and see what it adds, and then, depending on the content of patch, and when ToW is coming out (Its on my hitlist for sure, unless its hyped to hell...). If patch is sweet, and ToW is a while away (anyone heard when its due?) I think I will buy this game.

The patch will be out this week - thanks for your interest and feel free to keep asking questions.

Regards,

- Erik

[PDiFolco]

Back to the poster's question..
I'm an old CM fan and was rather happy to get PzC, hoping it was "one step beyond". But frankly I've been disappointed.
Pros of PzC are better 3D models (with textures on par to CM2/3), the "reaction phase" idea, and a campaign game.
Apart from that PzC is IMHO way below CM in all compartments : interface is clumsy and does not offer many options, rules are far more simpler/less realistic, there are just a few canned battles on the Eastern Front, with only a few choice of units, fixed AI placement, and worst of all no editor...
PzC is not a bad game, and if there were no CM it could have been rated high, but CM is 6 years old and PzC offers maybe  10% of it... [:(]

[Erik Rutins]

PDiFolco,

I'm sorry to hear you were disappointed.

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco
interface is clumsy and does not offer many options

I think the addition of a unit display that allows you to see your TO&E and click on the icons to select them is a step forward from CM, as is the addition of the mini-map. In what way do you see the interface as being clumsy?

rules are far more simpler/less realistic

We don't claim to do hyper-realistic calculations like CM, but I think the end results are realistic. I think Panzer Command is on par with SPWAW or similar titles in terms of realism and some folks prefer that in that they can actually figure out how the system works.

there are just a few canned battles on the Eastern Front, with only a few choice of units, fixed AI placement, and worst of all no editor...

I think you're giving it a bit of short shrift there. There are 12 battles alltogether, with one being a replayable meeting engagement skirmish with all unit types in the game selectable for additional variety. Two more are being added in the first update. 10 of the 12 are part of two linked campaigns, which give additional decisions on force choices and management beyond non-campaign scenarios. The unit choices are generally historical for this period and campaign, with a few additional ones for the variety skirmish. I would also ask if you've tried PBEM yet if you're tired of the AI?

The other part that you don't mention is that unlike CM, all the data in Panzer Command is open. That means that the scenarios, campaigns, units and weapons are all editable out of the box. In addition, the fan-created scenario editing tool makes it even easier to do (with a graphical interface) than the original text file editing method.

PzC is not a bad game, and if there were no CM it could have been rated high, but CM is 6 years old and PzC offers maybe  10% of it... [:(]

I think it's fair to say that Panzer Command is not up to CM's level, if only because CM is a long-standing system with about 4 years of development beyond the initial release included in it. Panzer Command is the first in a new series, which aims to have a full editor, multiple campaigns and many more units available within a year of the initial release, which represents 1 year of development so far. I think Panzer Command does have some advantages in terms of interface improvements, more understandable combat system and open data format over CM. I also think it isn't aiming to become CM, but to be something more like 3D SPWAW, which is somewhat different.

Regards,

- Erik

[PDiFolco]

Eric,
I knew my fast-typed rant would have a reply, nice to see you remained quite civil [;)]
 
Let me detail my point of view :
 
Interface : I forget the OoB screen, 1 point to you (I yelled at that for CM and was rebuffed by Fionn Kelly, still remember it!). But yet PzC lacks order options, even if less than CM would suffice,and I dislike the drop-down submenu system.
Still the biggest limitations are that you can't give waypoints, nor visualize the paths and targets of several/all units (Shift-p anyone ? ), and that units are overall hard to see with snow camo on snow terrain and no bases nor enlarge option (shift-b/shift-c ! ). Overall the player (at least me !) doesn't have proper feedback/info to properly play, I find this very frustrating ...
 
Realism : I agree with you... for armor combat. PzC infantry model is sensibly under CM's. And again, even if there's not much less, there's absolutely nothing more (at least I didn't find it) [:'(]. Artillery is also to review seriously (immediate ineffective FFE are *not* realistic).
 
Scenarios : 12 scenarios with maybe 40 unit types modelled just don't compare to the infinite choice of CM scenarios (with the editor and QB feature) and the 300+ units for each CM game. I recognized the campaign system as being a plus to PzC. And yes I'm tired of AI but didn't try pbem... Maybe I should have tried, but ain't very motivated : I find CM games more interesting ...and CM has also IP play ! [:D]
I wasn't aware the fan-made editor finally was available, but it has no map editing function. You're right about the engine openness though, it is possible to create new units and stuff, but nothing has been not yet... I was replying as the player I am, unable to make anything like a 3D model or texture (OTOH I can do data sheets for most WW2 things [8D]).
 
Game scope : time will tell and I also hope the PzC series will grow and evolve (after all I would *love* to have something to replace CM now that it is 2 years since BFC had been lost in their -uninteresting to me- CMx2 US/Syria stuff..) , but I fear too much will depend on the fans/modders effort. So what will come depends if the game gather enough fans ... and for the time being I really think the game does not offer enough to compare either with CM or SPWaW (or WinSPWW2..that I prefer !), so it's at risk to not have a big fanbase...
Being 3D plus WEGO the game will always be closer to CM than SP series for me. Even if mechanisms are more "wargame like" - these differences in mechanisms being rather hidden to the player anyway - the gameplay is driven by the "order/execute" system, whereas SP system allows you to move/fire your units with no constraint.
 
I find this is becoming an interesting discussion, thanks ! [:)]
 
 
 
 
 

[Erik Rutins]

PDiFolco,

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco
I knew my fast-typed rant would have a reply, nice to see you remained quite civil [;)]

We're always interested in all feedback, the goal is to make our games as good as possible.

But yet PzC lacks order options, even if less than CM would suffice,and I dislike the drop-down submenu system.

The sub-menu system is unlikely to change, but we've already added a few more order options for the first update. There's now a LOS tool, a Hold Fire order with several sub-options and the Facing option has been added to the Engage order as well.

Still the biggest limitations are that you can't give waypoints, nor visualize the paths and targets of several/all units (Shift-p anyone ? ),

We're working on adding the additional display option for platoon/all paths and targets. I agree that's a useful one to have. Waypoints we may add in the future, but with the 40 second turns we didn't find them that necessary pre-release. I've heard the requests for them though and we're looking to see what we can do there in the areas of both waypoints and tweaking the pathfinding further.

and that units are overall hard to see with snow camo on snow terrain and no bases nor enlarge option (shift-b/shift-c ! ). Overall the player (at least me !) doesn't have proper feedback/info to properly play, I find this very frustrating ...

That's another good point and we've got that on our short list as well. We're planning to add floating nationality/unit type graphics above each unit that you can toggle on and off as desired, which should make infantry units in woods very easy to find.

Realism : I agree with you... for armor combat. PzC infantry model is sensibly under CM's. And again, even if there's not much less, there's absolutely nothing more (at least I didn't find it) [:'(]. Artillery is also to review seriously (immediate ineffective FFE are *not* realistic).

We decided initially to not focus on infantry because of the initial campaign force mix. However, after getting feedback post-release, we went ahead and added much more detail to infantry for the first post-release update, which should be released today. On the subject of artillery, can you elaborate?

So far, I've heard good things overall about our artillery model so I'd like to hear what exactly is bothering you about it.

Scenarios : 12 scenarios with maybe 40 unit types modelled just don't compare to the infinite choice of CM scenarios (with the editor and QB feature) and the 300+ units for each CM game. I recognized the campaign system as being a plus to PzC. And yes I'm tired of AI but didn't try pbem... Maybe I should have tried, but ain't very motivated : I find CM games more interesting ...and CM has also IP play ! [:D]

Sure - I think there's a fundamental difference there too in terms of how long CM has been on the market with a scenario editing tool. Once we release a full editor, I think we will have a chance to catch up in overall content. However, I do think the open data is an important point here.

I wasn't aware the fan-made editor finally was available, but it has no map editing function. You're right about the engine openness though, it is possible to create new units and stuff, but nothing has been not yet... I was replying as the player I am, unable to make anything like a 3D model or texture (OTOH I can do data sheets for most WW2 things [8D]).

Understood - Laryngoscope gave us his permission to include the editor in the first update, so once folks download that today it should be more widely noticed. Map editing is going to have to wait for our full editor though, since unlike CM these maps are custom-designed down to the 1 meter level, rather than larger tiles that are easier to do an editor for. Right now, you could make a map if you were an experienced 3D artist/modeler, but that's a pretty high bar to cross.

As far as the textures and data, editing those is as easy as can be - just 2D art and text editing. We're also adding support in the first update for building in multiple texture sets on a single model so that designers can reference the texture set they want for a scenario. This will be helpful for us as well as the first expansion campaign, which is planned to have 18 new scenarios and maps, will be Spring/Summer rather than Winter.

Game scope : time will tell and I also hope the PzC series will grow and evolve (after all I would *love* to have something to replace CM now that it is 2 years since BFC had been lost in their -uninteresting to me- CMx2 US/Syria stuff..) , but I fear too much will depend on the fans/modders effort. So what will come depends if the game gather enough fans ... and for the time being I really think the game does not offer enough to compare either with CM or SPWaW (or WinSPWW2..that I prefer !), so it's at risk to not have a big fanbase...

Well, we will continue to develop it and hopefully a community will form. "If you build it, they will come" as Field of Dreams said. I think a lot of folks are waiting for the demo and watching as well. Panzer Command also has the advantage of being a DirectX 9-based 3D engine which we've only begun to exploit and as such it has a lot of room for growth visually as well even though it already looks better than CM.

Being 3D plus WEGO the game will always be closer to CM than SP series for me. Even if mechanisms are more "wargame like" - these differences in mechanisms being rather hidden to the player anyway - the gameplay is driven by the "order/execute" system, whereas SP system allows you to move/fire your units with no constraint.
I find this is becoming an interesting discussion, thanks ! [:)]

It's interesting how much the WEGO or IGO-UGO decision does seem to influence how a game is viewed and I certainly understand the CM comparisons. We were definitely influenced by CM as well and it's hard not to be in this area, but I think Panzer Command is presently different from CM and will continue to be a distinct alternative as time goes on. We went with that because it was the best fit for the original rules set (Panzer War) that we used as a basis for Panzer Command. Originally, there were even more segments/phases, but we boiled them down to two to increase the fun and reduce the complexity a bit.

Take a look at the v1.12 update once it's released today and please stick around. I think we will have some pleasant surprised in store for everyone who owns Panzer Command through 2006 and 2007.

Regards,

- Erik

[Prince of Eckmühl]

IMO, PzC is superior to the original CMBO as shipped. When I received my copy of the original CM, it was barely stable, buggy as hell, and, IIRC, it was something like a year before MP was working properly.

I find certain aspects of Panzer Command, the arty interface/functions for instance, preferable to CM, across the product line. But, that's just my opinion.

Other components of PzC, the modding tools for instance, could use some serious attention from the developer.

I purchased the game because it's clear that the development of the Combat Mission series (as we have known it) is at an end. BF wants to focus on greener pastures, and I certainly don't want to undermine the franchise by staging an eternal public boycott of the outfit for having abandoned my passion.

Now, we have this new game, however, and I think that wargamers ought to support it.

It's hard to believe that folks who are interested in the subject matter wouldn't jump on PcZ. Given that it cost $25 to attend a two hour movie in the U.S., the game seems like a bargain. Put another way, I've spent a helluva lot more on entertainment, gaming and otherwise, and been far less satisified. And my purchase is an investment in a good, stable game with lots of potential for fine-tuning and growth.

Sounds like a winner to me,

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco
Realism : I agree with you... for armor combat. PzC infantry model is sensibly under CM's. And again, even if there's not much less, there's absolutely nothing more (at least I didn't find it) [:'(]. Artillery is also to review seriously (immediate ineffective FFE are *not* realistic).

Not to say what is a better game. This is to address the 'reality' questions only.

The bean counting in CM is not a substitute for realism. Knowing too much is just unrealistic.
The armor values are gleaned from and agree with many published sources and are not one gentleman's own calculations. When combined with a proper probability envelope they are more in tune with reality.

I don't like the sighting algorithm in CM.

As for artillery. In CM a FO gets a shell count yet. More beans.

[Erik Rutins]

I'd also rather not get into criticizing CM over just contrasting the two games, as I enjoy the CM series and they are definitely outstanding achievements in wargaming. However, I do feel that the differences between Panzer Command and CM are worth highlighting when folks are wondering how they stack up.

It's also worth noting that Panzer War is indeed a tried and true system with decades of work behind it and as the basis for Panzer Command, it gives us a solid core for the game system and data.

Regards,

- Erik

[Trigger Happy]

My first impression is that PzCom is a hex-less turn-based game...[:D]  and not a turn-based version of a real time game like CM. [X(]

If you can find the meaning of my words, you'll discover that it makes a huge difference between the two.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Trigger Happy
My first impression is that PzCom is a hex-less turn-based game...[:D]  and not a turn-based version of a real time game like CM. [X(]

You are right in some ways. The original Panzer War was not suppose to be a real time continuous simulation divided into 75 second slices of time. It was suppose to represent what happens in each of those turns realistically. But the length of time and what happened between each turn is undefined. There is a lot of non-combat or non-manuever 'junk' time left out. It may be 0 seconds or 20 minutes.

Thus only the turn itself is meant to accurately represent that allotted 75-80 seconds of time. In fact in PW or PzC a 40 turn game might really represent an entire day of battle with all the rearming, refueling, scouting, communicating, map reading, resting, eating, confusion, snafus and delays left out. Not assuming that all battles take 40-50 real minutes to resolve make PzC more realistic.

[benpark]

"Take a look at the v1.12 update once it's released today"

Today?[:D]

[Erik Rutins]

Yes, it should be posted sometime tonight.

[benpark]

Excellent, excellent.

[PDiFolco]

ORIGINAL: Trigger Happy

My first impression is that PzCom is a hex-less turn-based game...[:D]  and not a turn-based version of a real time game like CM. [X(]

If you can find the meaning of my words, you'll discover that it makes a huge difference between the two.

I really don't understand what you're talking about [&:] ...
To me both games share exactly the same principles : continuous (no hexes) 3D space, simultaneous play through orders phase then execution seen through a "turn movie".
And even yesterday I played both ... [;)]

Will have a look at v1.12 [:'(]