Something PCK needs

[thewood1]

Take a look at this thread at BFC (I hope Matrix doesn't mind the link.):

http://www.battlefront.com/community/sh ... hp?t=38765

It is a great discussion about crossing open ground with infantry.

It shows a few things:

- How important the FOW in CM is. Part of the tactics are about getting clear info on the shooters.

- The combination of morale, skill, and fitness being a big factor in tactics.

- The command structure's importance in CM.

These three things point to key issues in PCK, one positive and two negative. The FOW in CM works very well and is lacking in PCK. The ability of infantry to get tired and refuse orders at some point. The command structure of CM still being weaker, in theory than PCK's. One thing that really doesn't seem to show up as a huge factor is the borg spotting. I still feel this is overblown to some extent, unless relative spotting can be made to work properly.

Even though the tactics are close to real world and can be used at any squad-scale game, it shows knowing the game system helps immensely. The lesson also shows the little nuances that CMBB/AK had built into it and learned from CMBO. Note one of the comments mentioning the difference from CMBO.

JasonC has quite a few of these lessons scattered around the CMBB forum over a few years. PCK really lacks this type of community now. It still seems to me that there are more people modding than playing. I played it pretty striaght for a couple of months, then tired of the same old maps. I went back to CM. I am watching the mapmaking progress closely to see if that generates more interest in scenarios and playing.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Take a look at this thread at BFC (I hope Matrix doesn't mind the link.):

http://www.battlefront.com/community/sh ... hp?t=38765

It is a great discussion about crossing open ground with infantry.

It shows a few things:

- How important the FOW in CM is. Part of the tactics are about getting clear info on the shooters.

- The combination of morale, skill, and fitness being a big factor in tactics.

- The command structure's importance in CM.

These three things point to key issues in PCK, one positive and two negative. The FOW in CM works very well and is lacking in PCK. The ability of infantry to get tired and refuse orders at some point. The command structure of CM still being weaker, in theory than PCK's. One thing that really doesn't seem to show up as a huge factor is the borg spotting. I still feel this is overblown to some extent, unless relative spotting can be made to work properly.

Even though the tactics are close to real world and can be used at any squad-scale game, it shows knowing the game system helps immensely. The lesson also shows the little nuances that CMBB/AK had built into it and learned from CMBO. Note one of the comments mentioning the difference from CMBO.

JasonC has quite a few of these lessons scattered around the CMBB forum over a few years. PCK really lacks this type of community now. It still seems to me that there are more people modding than playing. I played it pretty striaght for a couple of months, then tired of the same old maps. I went back to CM. I am watching the mapmaking progress closely to see if that generates more interest in scenarios and playing.

Is JasonC's infantry part of the same outfit that claws its way toward self-immolation after the Matilda's are destroyed in the Hellfire Pass scenario? If so, phooey on them. After viewing that little display of misguided contrivance (masquerading as a determined AI), I never gave the grunts a second glance. Seriously, I parked infantry play from that point forward.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[thewood1]

What the heck are you talking about?

[Mraah]

thewood1,

I haven't ventured over to the forum to read JasonC's tactics, thanks for your link.

I've been applying tactics from the book Mark Walker wrote ... CMBB Strategy Guide.

I'm guilty of modding more than playing so I'm taking the words of those who play instead of modding seriously.

Items like sighting and unit size for spotting can be modded in the game. I've always been curious as to how changing these values would help in bringing the infantry tactics closer to something we've all grown to live with.

When you say "borg sighting" ... what exactly do you mean and which game has it?

thanks,
Rob

[benpark]

Agreed on the two points that PzC needs to make the game more realistic, and better to play. Infantry that can sprint a kilometer and not tire is a problem. Morale also needs fleshing out. "Open" terrain is rarely as open as it is in PzC (and this is true in CM as well, but there was usually less of it to be seen). More methods of depicting this (visually and in game mechanics) will also lead to better game play and realistic behaviors.

Part of my attraction to modding the game is to try to make the infantry game more interesting. The game clearly feels like it was intended as an AFV heavy game, with infantry playing a supporting role. This has changed for the better in PzCK, but there is a ways to go to bring it up to CMBB infantry combat standards in my estimation. Less wide open maps, more urban settings and better infantry scenarios all can make the game better to an extent. I'm hearing from Erik that the infantry game is getting attention for the next game, but it would be nice to hear from the developer what general direction this will take.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
- How important the FOW in CM is. Part of the tactics are about getting clear info on the shooters.

- The combination of morale, skill, and fitness being a big factor in tactics.

- The command structure's importance in CM.

Are you concerned that gun jams are missing or is it fatigue? Because knowing the fitness level of each squad every moment no matter where they are isn't exactly FOW to me. Borg intelligence is as unrealistic as Borg spotting.

[benpark]

Knowing that there are limits to how much the little dudes can take (running them long distances etc) is a preferable trade off to maybe knowing a little too much in terms of what a realistic commander might. A good company commander would know the basic state of the squads in his command (morale/training/what can be expected in terms of combat perfomance), so this isn't completely omniscient.

[Mraah]

Whether or not the commander knows the fatigue state isn't as important as whether or not the game engine knows the fatigue state.

Pck doesn't model fatigue ... so they can rush forever. Tactically, you wouldn't want to rush them forever but the fact remains ... you can rush them forever.

We don't need to know their fatigue state ... We can figure this out by how well they perform ... ie, you rush them for two turns and the next turn you can't rush them ... what gives? ... oh, maybe they're tired.

So, not knowing they're tired until you give them another order would work as far as FOW goes. Even if Rush was available for a command and next phase you look and all they are doing is engage:move should be enough of a clue to tell you that (a) they're tired or (b) they're under fire. In other words, it's out of your control until you can figure out what the problem is.

That, to me, is more realistic than having borg health status. We shouldn't know ... we need to figure this out ourselves.

So, please model fatigue in Pck ... Just don't tell us with a status display!

Rob

[thewood1]

This was discussed at length a few years ago on the CM boards.  BFC's reasoning for showing various states, like jams or exhaustion, was because players would get frustrated about their men not doing what they were asked to do.  The feedback would let players know what was going on.
 
If you take your logic out further, you should never be allowed to view beyond ground level see what is the state of any of your units in PCK either.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Because knowing the fitness level of each squad every moment no matter where they are isn't exactly FOW to me. Borg intelligence is as unrealistic as Borg spotting.

I don't follow the logic of your argument--are you saying that because a commander wouldn't know the up-to-the-minute fatigue status of his troops, fatigue shouldn't be modeled? Is the same true for ammo counts, squad casualties, etc.? Gee, why model any of this stuff?

[z1812]

Hi All,

In order to appeal to the largest possible audience ( buyers ) then the game should display, as well as model, items such as fatigue or state of command.

It just helps to offset frustration when players feel that they don't know what is happening in the game. I suppose that type of detail could be made to toggle on and off.

I play games with relative and borg spotting and it really does not make much difference to my enjoyment level.

Games by their nature are impressionistic. So the components must come together in a way that feels right. PCK does not have that feel yet. I admit this is very often a subjective judgement. However many seem to share this feeling. To be more specific we all want the game to be succesful but naturally their are some differences of opinion as to how this should be achieved. For all we know financially it may already be a success.

One thing is certain. As wargamers we are much better off having PCK as a game system in progress than not at all.

Regards John

[Mraah]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

This was discussed at length a few years ago on the CM boards.  BFC's reasoning for showing various states, like jams or exhaustion, was because players would get frustrated about their men not doing what they were asked to do.  The feedback would let players know what was going on.

If you take your logic out further, you should never be allowed to view beyond ground level see what is the state of any of your units in PCK either.

Oh yeah, very true ... Total frustration then!

What do you think about having exact details, but delayed by a turn or two?

You know, if you rush that platoon into the woods and engage the enemy you knew what their starting ammo/fatigue was ... but, after the firefight you wouldn't be able to find out their status again until a good full turn or two later. If troops are supressed then they may not be able to give you their status as quickly as would a squad free from combat.

Experience could play an additional role ... An expert squad with a specific medal could give exact, timely feedback on their status whilst a green squad lags somewhat ... although you have control of the squad you just can't get timely or accurate status info because ... well, they're green.

I dunno ... Although we're playing at a higher command level we are still assuming the role of squad leader so having details is required to make a decision ... but timely details can give us information too quickly when in reality it would take a bit longer.

Rob

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Mraah


Whether or not the commander knows the fatigue state isn't as important as whether or not the game engine knows the fatigue state.

Pck doesn't model fatigue ... so they can rush forever. Tactically, you wouldn't want to rush them forever but the fact remains ... you can rush them forever.

We don't need to know their fatigue state ... We can figure this out by how well they perform ... ie, you rush them for two turns and the next turn you can't rush them ... what gives? ... oh, maybe they're tired.

Actually, that's the exact way it should work.
But Rush in PCK is closer to the standard marching over good ground pace in distance per turn. So they could do this pace for quite awhile. Other orders are slower but are caused by the troops using more caution and cover.

There is not a "run" pace in PCK. If there were then some sort of reduction of speed after so many turns or maybe something similar to stun where the player doesn't know exactly when they will recover.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Mraah
What do you think about having exact details, but delayed by a turn or two?

You know, if you rush that platoon into the woods and engage the enemy you knew what their starting ammo/fatigue was ... but, after the firefight you wouldn't be able to find out their status again until a good full turn or two later. If troops are supressed then they may not be able to give you their status as quickly as would a squad free from combat.

As players wear the hats of Company Commander, Platoon Commander and tank commander or squad leader all at once it is useful for them to have information so they can do their job. The trick is to make it as useful as possible but not change too much the way one level commander would do his job knowing what they all know. If the tactical commands of the Company Command were to be based on knowledge which tanks had the highest count of HE ammo were assigned to go against infantry. Similarity sorting tanks for orders based on which had the highest count of AP ammo be used to attack enemy armor would be a loser in the game reality department.
(I’m not talking about knowing a unit is out of ammo or low on ammo. I’m talking about knowing it has 20 rounds vs. having 23 rounds.)

Would the tactical orders be the same if the player knew the ammo count of particular units? Would the orders then be the same if there was hope of ammo replenishment to a higher count within a few turns?

Delaying the information flow on counts is no solution as there is no way the ammo count tally of each would ever be read over the radio during a battle. But maybe a low on ammo indicator could be added. This would show as a unit would be asking for more ammo as it burnt through its supply.

[benpark]

I suppose the question about what the game is trying to simulate is comes up- is it a command simulator, or a combat simulation of eastern front combat during WWII or maybe some amalgamation of the two. I'm more interested in the all around simulation of on the ground combat (particularly on the eastern front) than in being in the specific role of battalion/platoon command.

I understand the desire to keep the game mechanics simple and to keep FoW as distinctive to the original rules as possible. At the moment, though the game is too much on the spare side. I'm not saying any of this to be negative, I think the game has great potential and I hope that being vocal can get some of these nagging issues that keep me from playing more ironed out. It's just that some of the weight needs to be shifted around in the seats so the car can speed up on the hills...

[thewood1]

Again, my statement stands...where are the fans with tactical nuggets?  Heated discussions on tactics would be a blessing, versus CM vs. PCK bashing.

[benpark]

Set up a tactical example, that might lead to the discussions you are looking for.

[thewood1]

Better yet, take the example already presented.  How would you do that in PCK? In fact, it might present an opportunity for someone to show PCK's superior command structure to limit the number of orders needed.

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

This was discussed at length a few years ago on the CM boards.  BFC's reasoning for showing various states, like jams or exhaustion, was because players would get frustrated about their men not doing what they were asked to do.  The feedback would let players know what was going on.

I have to agree with thewood on this one. I would get a bit frustrated playing if guys weren't following my orders, unless I had some visual indicator as to why.

Rick

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Rick
I would get a bit frustrated playing if guys weren't following my orders, unless I had some visual indicator as to why.

That's the way I feel about track damage. If a tank is falling behind as the platoon is ordered to move I assume it is track damage. But it could be it is just moving over slow terrain. Some sort of indicator sprite/button should show if there is track damage.
If a squad is faituged then maybe a sprite should appear until it recovers.

I perfer this kind of info rather than some sort of gauge or fatigue bar.