CMx1 vs PCK

[ravinhood]

So I'm guessing you can't reduce the trees like you can in CM to see any units inside a heavy forest? You guys should take a lesson from Mad Minutes terrain engine where it just has a few trees scattered here and there in an actually dense forest. The terrain where a forest is is dark anyways and there's really no need to have 1000 trees so you can't see what's going on. Afterall it's a warGAME not a gd simulation or has to have every leaf on every tree that ever existed during the battle. lol I "demand" bases...so there's 1 Erik. And you know I wanted printed manuals and you to release games when the PHYSICAL game was ready also...and I got my way there.

[Erik Rutins]

On the future wish list is the ability to make trees "transparent", but for now the unit icons work well. you can just toggle them on to see where your units are and then back off. Right now though, it is indeed WYSIWYG in that every single tree in a wood or forest is represented and considered for line of sight and fire calculations.

[ravinhood]

WYSIWYG? huh?

Oh I get it What you See is What you get!

You damn kid text messagers. lol I hate em.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
WYSIWYG? huh?
Oh I get it What you See is What you get!
You damn kid text messagers. lol I hate em.

Good grief, that's been around since at least the late '80s, I remember that in the original Windows marketing campaign... and if the kettle may ask the pot, what exactly do you consider "lol" to be? [;)]

[ravinhood]

lol? why everyone knows that means "Laughing OnLine"

Also I've been around a looooooooooong time probably longer than you and I never saw heard WYSIWYG anywhere. But, I never was a big microsoft fan or read much about what they did or who they were. All I cared out of them was an OS so I could play my games from SSI and SIERRA. Oh an EPYX and BRODERBUND and and lol. Oops there I go again I used lol.

[Stridor]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

So I'm guessing you can't reduce the trees like you can in CM to see any units inside a heavy forest? You guys should take a lesson from Mad Minutes terrain engine where it just has a few trees scattered here and there in an actually dense forest. The terrain where a forest is is dark anyways and there's really no need to have 1000 trees so you can't see what's going on. Afterall it's a warGAME not a gd simulation or has to have every leaf on every tree that ever existed during the battle. lol I "demand" bases...so there's 1 Erik. And you know I wanted printed manuals and you to release games when the PHYSICAL game was ready also...and I got my way there.

Actually you can toggle tress and all obstructing objects off by pressing the "ins" button. This gives you only the 2D outlines of stuff (like where dense vs light Forrest are, mud, swmap, etc) Kinda like a topo map. I find it really helpful when moving units around as it gives you better appreciation about like LOS, where the game thinks edge of the dense Forrest is etc.

I like to think of it as Neo's way of looking at the matrix as it kind of simplifies the world (shows you how the AI sees it). However it is not a mode one would take PR SS of, that is why you haven't seen it.

[Staggerwing]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

WYSIWYG? huh?

Oh I get it What you See is What you get!

You damn kid text messagers. lol I hate em.

IIRC 'WYSIWYG' has been around since the first attempts at desktop publishing
and probably dates back even further (perhaps even the first word processors?).
It is pronounced 'wizzy-wig'.

EDIT: According to Wikipedia it dates back to Flip Wilson, of all people!

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Staggerwing
EDIT: According to Wikipedia it dates back to Flip Wilson, of all people!

Not in the computer context. More like the Geraldine context.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Krasny
Please oh please can we have bases instead of those plug-ulgy floating coins.

How do you see ground level bases in woods, in buildings and in smoke? The floating coins are at least above a lot of terrain features. Though they do obstruct your view at time.

That's exactly it - we actually looked at bases too. The #1 reason for adding these was player feedback from Winterstorm where they said they had a lot of trouble finding their infantry in woods. The icons make that a lot easier than bases would.

Would it be possible to have them both? To get to choose which one you wanted to use as a display?

Good Hunting.

MR

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Would it be possible to have them both? To get to choose which one you wanted to use as a display?

Kharkov is totally locked as far as features go at this point, so not in this release. If we continue to get requests for bases as an option though, we'll definitely add it to our development plan.

Regards,

- Erik

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Obviously you are not a student of the "Battle of the Bulge" the Germans set out in that battle for 50 hours 50 hours of FULL SCALE ATTACK and supplies...50 HOURS NON-STOP ATTACKING 50 HOURS! Last I checked 50 hours was TWO DAYS and 2 Hours.

Now granted Kharkov is going to be but a small very small portion of that big battle, but, none the less those units in that 1km x 1km area during the battle of the Bulge fought no less of the 50 hours than the next group. It was all or nothing. Gung Ho! and all that stuff. What's german for Gung Ho? btw? any germans out there?

Most major offensives had their troops similarly supplied. Do you think you could RUN for 2 days straight? That's about what the energy output is for infantry that are in mobile operations.

All tactical scenarios, battles, simulations, whatever you want to call them are nothing more than a slice from a much larger picture. What happened in the time frame of the actual combat. That combat can't go on for days. Not a single action by a single platoon or company. The men would drop dead from exhaustion before that happened. Also, the bean counters figured on an average rate of useage for ammunition. How do you give a tank 5 days of supply for them to carry? They only go into combat with a basic load. After that they have to be resupplied. The fight is over until they get that new load of ammo.

Just because they have those kinds of supplies means nothing.

The normal battle times I see are about 40 minutes for a battalion sized operation.

And yes I've studied the Battle of the Bulge. Nothing against the Western Allies but their operations are normally very small when compared to those on the Eastern Front. I've spent some time studying them too.

Good Hunting.

MR

[ravinhood]

Tanks resupplied during the battles, Infantry as well, but, the battle didn't stop for resupply it continued on for 50  hours! FIFTY HOURS NON STOP....you didn't read very well it looks like or didn't study the correct books. 50 hours non stop...let that keep ringing in your ear. You obviously have never been in a firefight either. The adrenilin rush from fear would keep a person going for hours not minutes. That's what people get for readin too much and not actually having been there. I had uncles in the Battle of the Bulge.

[Erik Rutins]

Ravinhood,

I'm sure long battles did happen, particularly for troops in extremely desparate situations. I don't think that contradicts Mad Russian's comment, which I agree with, that most battles were much shorter in terms of the length of the actual firefight. Now you might have a firefight for an hour, pause for an hour, resume fighting, etc. but there were usually pauses and often multiple hours between engagements.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Tanks resupplied during the battles, Infantry as well, but, the battle didn't stop for resupply it continued on for 50 hours! FIFTY HOURS NON STOP....you didn't read very well it looks like or didn't study the correct books. 50 hours non stop...let that keep ringing in your ear. You obviously have never been in a firefight either. The adrenilin rush from fear would keep a person going for hours not minutes. That's what people get for readin too much and not actually having been there. I had uncles in the Battle of the Bulge.

The entire Battle of the Bulge for fifty hours huh? You can't name a single battle in WWII that lasted fifty hours from beginning to end with no break. Not the same company. Never happened.

Brigades, Division's, Corps and Armies yes. But that's not the same group of guys being in contact the whole time.

While I wasn't there, as your uncles were, neither were you. Maybe you should read a bit more. I did serve in the Army and I know what my experience was.

The after action reports from company commanders pretty much lay out how much fighting they did and for how long. Battles go for different lengths but they normally don't last long.

Resupply during combat isn't always possible. In fact it normally isn't possible during the fighting. Tanks especially would pull back to a safe zone to resupply. They wouldn't just sit in a firefight and have men run AP rounds to them while enemy tanks were targeting them.

Logic alone tells you a company couldn't fight in steady combat for fifty hours. If even a single man was killed per hour which isn't much combat at all a full strength company would be depleted by 50%. A tank company losing a single tank an hour would last all of 10 hours. Losing a single man or tank an hour is not heavy or sustained combat. When combat gets intense those kind of losses can be measured in minutes not hours.

Whatever you or I think of the length of a firefight is irrelevant. The game has it's own method of determining the length. If you play my scenarios be ready for some tight turns. I don't believe in giving you all day to get an objective. I just don't think it's realistic.

Good Hunting.

MR

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Ravinhood,

I'm sure long battles did happen, particularly for troops in extremely desparate situations. I don't think that contradicts Mad Russian's comment, which I agree with, that most battles were much shorter in terms of the length of the actual firefight. Now you might have a firefight for an hour, pause for an hour, resume fighting, etc. but there were usually pauses and often multiple hours between engagements.

But, I'm not talking about the "usual", I'm talking about situations where fighting went on much longer than a few minutes as he said earlier. If you're going to portray history you need to portray ALL of it, not just choice or usual moments. So, I don't agree with the philosophy of everything set in the "usual" sense in a RANDOM generated atmosphere. Everything should be POSSIBLE.

The entire Battle of the Bulge for fifty hours huh? You can't name a single battle in WWII that lasted fifty hours from beginning to end with no break. Not the same company. Never happened.

Sure I can I just did "The BATTLE of the Bulge". 50 hours non stop full scale attacking. How much plainer do I need to make it? Now if you're only definition of battle means attacking I might concede the point, but, a BATTLE entails a lot more than just attacking, you have to MOVE, PLAN, EXECUTE, SUPPLY, RESUPPLY, but, it doesn't mean the battle is over just because bullets aren't flying. Why you think they called it BATTLE of the Bulge? And every encounter didn't have a NAME as well. So, you can't sit there and say no battle lasted longer than a few minutes either bud. As I said some battles could last minutes, hours or days. It just depends on what one defines as a BATTLE.

[Joshuatree]

[Mraah]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

The entire Battle of the Bulge for fifty hours huh? You can't name a single battle in WWII that lasted fifty hours from beginning to end with no break. Not the same company. Never happened.

Brigades, Division's, Corps and Armies yes. But that's not the same group of guys being in contact the whole time.

While I wasn't there, as your uncles were, neither were you. Maybe you should read a bit more. I did serve in the Army and I know what my experience was.

The after action reports from company commanders pretty much lay out how much fighting they did and for how long. Battles go for different lengths but they normally don't last long.

Resupply during combat isn't always possible. In fact it normally isn't possible during the fighting. Tanks especially would pull back to a safe zone to resupply. They wouldn't just sit in a firefight and have men run AP rounds to them while enemy tanks were targeting them.

Logic alone tells you a company couldn't fight in steady combat for fifty hours. If even a single man was killed per hour which isn't much combat at all a full strength company would be depleted by 50%. A tank company losing a single tank an hour would last all of 10 hours. Losing a single man or tank an hour is not heavy or sustained combat. When combat gets intense those kind of losses can be measured in minutes not hours.

Whatever you or I think of the length of a firefight is irrelevant. The game has it's own method of determining the length. If you play my scenarios be ready for some tight turns. I don't believe in giving you all day to get an objective. I just don't think it's realistic.

Good Hunting.

MR

MR,

Did you see my post in the features thread about having a larger core force? Maybe we can have a core force "pool" to pull units out of and perhaps not available again for the next battle in the same day, or days later.

tm.asp?m=1732181&mpage=2&key=#

Just wondering what your comment on that would be.

Rob

EDIT : Post #53 if the link didn't go directly to it.

[Mraah]

I'd like to throw some comments out there on a few subjects :

1. Fog of War and Indentified Unit -

I would have thought NOT knowing the ID of a unit would be more realistic than getting the exact details, ie, TANK vs T-34.
There were countless examples of Americans identifying every PzIV as a Tiger or every anti-tank gun being a Flak88 when it was actually a Pak40 75mm.
I think when a unit is first spotted in a phase that it should be a generic unit until it can be properly identified. The expereince of the unit spotting the enemy would play a role as to whether you get a positive ID or not. I mean, even a well hidden AT gun could be any type until you hear it fire or see it's effects. Plus, casualties taken when in cover should be hidden. If you see small arms fire coming out of woods and lob a few HE shells into the area and they stop shooting, well, maybe you got them, maybe you didn't. Obviously if you see 10 men launch up out of the woods and back down you could probably write that squad off . Disable showing the steps, but show the pinned state. I think the sound effects should be adjusted as well. Hearing the enemy men go "oooh" and "ahh" is ok but only within a certain distance from a friendly unit.

2. Artillery vs Woods
Wasn't indirect fire into woods more deadlier than direct fire? Is this modeled?

Thanks for you comments. I'm enjoying PCOWS. I can't wait for Karkov!

Rob

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Mraah
1. Fog of War and Indentified Unit -
I would have thought NOT knowing the ID of a unit would be more realistic than getting the exact details, ie, TANK vs T-34.
There were countless examples of Americans identifying every PzIV as a Tiger or every anti-tank gun being a Flak88 when it was actually a Pak40 75mm.
I think when a unit is first spotted in a phase that it should be a generic unit until it can be properly identified. The expereince of the unit spotting the enemy would play a role as to whether you get a positive ID or not. I mean, even a well hidden AT gun could be any type until you hear it fire or see it's effects. Plus, casualties taken when in cover should be hidden. If you see small arms fire coming out of woods and lob a few HE shells into the area and they stop shooting, well, maybe you got them, maybe you didn't. Obviously if you see 10 men launch up out of the woods and back down you could probably write that squad off . Disable showing the steps, but show the pinned state. I think the sound effects should be adjusted as well. Hearing the enemy men go "oooh" and "ahh" is ok but only within a certain distance from a friendly unit.

It's a good suggestion for an intermediate stage of FOW, as CM has. Right now you can be fired at by units that you have not yet identified (in which case we use the question mark to show their location but you don't get any info) but once you identify it we do show the actual model and info, though your knowledge of their exact info as far as damage and such is limited. You will only see casualty steps on units that are in that identified state. Also, infantry is much harder to spot and "identify" in Kharkov than it was in Winterstorm.

2. Artillery vs Woods
Wasn't indirect fire into woods more deadlier than direct fire? Is this modeled?

Yes indeed, but that is also a Kharkov improvement and not in Winterstorm. HE fire (whether direct or indirect) into light woods, woods and heavy woods gets a +1 Firepower modifier. Woods still do also provide some cover, but the bonus negates much or all of that benefit depending on the type of woods.

Regards,

- Erik

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Mraah
I would have thought NOT knowing the ID of a unit would be more realistic than getting the exact details, ie, TANK vs T-34.

Yeah, especially later war when vehicles were so well camouflaged you had to get right up next to them to tell what they were. Though a lot of blob model tanks wouldn’t look so nice are normal models.

Now if we were to compare to CM:AK demo of what I experienced. I had a PaK38 in hide condition vs. the backs of 4 Sherman tanks at about 500m. The fire order was given. The PaK gun went from hide to fire and the Shermans immediately started turning and drew a target on my gun from both their main gun and their pintle mount AA machinegun. The gun crew was still getting up but hadn’t even fired a shot. By the time the gun‘s first shot the tanks had turned over 90 degrees toward them and the shell glanced off their side or front turret. The Sherman’s crews must have Spider senses that began tingling when a yellow target line was put on them. The PaK gun got only one shot off.