PzcK vs CMBB

The highly anticipated second release in the Panzer Command series, featuring an updated engine and many major feature improvements. 3D Tactical turn-based WWII combat on the Eastern Front, with historical scenarios and campaigns as well as support for random generated battles and campaigns from 1941-1944.
thewood1
Posts: 9106
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: PzcK vs CMBB

Post by thewood1 »

Was that CMBB or PCK?
thewood1
Posts: 9106
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: PzcK vs CMBB

Post by thewood1 »

ORIGINAL: Mobius
ORIGINAL: thewood1
ORIGINAL: Mobius
One could devise an experiment.  Get a couple of your friends together and play a game.   Each one gets a single number of each platoon to run without looking at what the others are doing.  That is, player #1 gets unit #1 of each platoon to do what he sees fit. 
But no communication longer than like 10 seconds a turn.   In PCK the HQ would go first to set the orders mode, so the subunit would know what is expected of them.   See what the subunits would do.  Then try it with CMBB.  Does CM have orders? 
I actually play CMBB mostly that way. I double click the the platoon HQ and give a general order for a march to position. Sometimes I even do it for targeting.
Well there you go. The experiment will work if you can get a few friends to play the same side. You give your HQ its command then tell the rest of the platoon what it was. Then see how they order their tank or squad. Should be interesting.

Anyone reading my quote, please go up and read the rest. Here it is a little out of context.
rickier65
Posts: 14241
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2000 8:00 am

RE: PzcK vs CMBB

Post by rickier65 »

ORIGINAL: thewood1

That brings up another thing I noticed in PCK in my test. There is no way to group order or select beyond the platoon. Not a huge deal in the deail of a firefight, but when moving a large force to contact, makes giving general orders a pain.

THe regroup order is great for this. Lets you set the destination and formation you want the platoon to assume, and the whole platoon acts together. If maps were larger, this regroup order would probably get used even more. If you haven't used it yet, try the set battle "Return Road to Kharkov" , it's whre I first tried out the regroup order - it worked really well. (As did the subsequent witdraw order I gave to my HT's -*g*).

It was fun watching my tank platoon moving up into a wedge formation while my HT's were reversing.

Rick


thewood1
Posts: 9106
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: PzcK vs CMBB

Post by thewood1 »

I thought regroup only applied to platoons.
Capitaine
Posts: 1028
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:00 am

RE: PzcK vs CMBB

Post by Capitaine »

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Your interpretation of detach is more literal than mine.  I mean when a company sets up an attack it will get support weapons from the weapons platoon.  The HMG and small mortars are assigned to support the attak, based on a commanders plan.  The entire weapons platoon is not still connected to the HQ of the weapons platoon.  It may be formal, or it may be ad hoc.

Yes, this is what I'm getting at. Just when do you believe this "commander's plan" is being made? I'm suggesting that the commander's plan to attach a support weapon to a platoon is made at set-up or scenario start; not once the game begins. I suppose there could be an in-game process for this, where the platoon leader determines the need, gets radio contact with his CO, makes the request, awaits confirmation, awaits arrival of the support unit, etc. How many turns would this be? In games like ASL and CM (derived from ASL), you do not need to wait. There is no hierarchy to worry about. Some lieutenant doesn't just reformulate an attack and begin adding units to be under his command. He's already got his marching orders.

I think you need to look at what kinds of tactical machinations these platoon leaders with their own orders to fulfill could be expected to perform within the confines of the battle plan at game start.
If you are going to have platoon orders, you have to have the tools and flexibility that a real world commander would have, especially if you are not expected to take the role of squad/team leader.  At the same time, penalties should be there for someone not following the command structure.  If I decide to take a squad and move to the other side of the map and it wasn't part of the commanders plan, make them pay the penalty.

But who is "the commander"? The player is presumably the Company or higher commander in charge of the platoons. He also makes the constrained decisions for lower commanders at the platoon/squad level, which cannot be perfectly communicated to the relevant parties due to the nature of the battlefield.

I'm not sure what it is you're wanting to do that you say you cannot do. Most games generally allow far too much independent control over unit actions. And this gets to the major thing that turned me off on ASL and CM. There are no real organizational control requirements in those games. The player is allowed to use squads and vehicles as a kind of "game currency" which can be grouped or exchanged to achieve any tactical goal he wishes. In pbem games of CM, I would see players moving and positioning units like surgeons, achieving pinpoint accuracy in every detail. That is not warfare to me. Wargames need to reflect command with much more blunt instruments. Frustrate those who desire intricate precision and concert of forces. No plan survives contact with the enemy. Have the Russians bring on the human waves because the troops cannot be controlled effectively. Force the players to make a good but simple overall plan, not pirouette around from covered site to covered site, looking to snipe or ambush at every turn.

Oh, you can still play a finesse style in PCK, but the game makes you work at it a little more, and forces the command hierarchy on your plans.
Look at CMBB's handling of split squads.  You can do it all day, but they are brittle, tend to break, and are slow to react.  That is because BFC made the decision that squads is as low as they want to control.  But if I need to split them, make it easy to manage and not a burden on the interface.

Yes, but orders transmission and subordination is the main issue to be reflected by command and control, not the brittleness or slowness of the detachment, necessarily. How much command latitude does a half squad have? Does the army want enlisted men running off in an independent command? How realistic would it be to make this option generally available as a rule? Again, this *seems* a case of playing a game and assuming that game (ASL or CM) reflects reality.

PCK embraces a much more sophisticated approach to command by limiting the means by which players control their forces. You must respect the units' organization and, to a certain extent, the limits of communication on the battlefield. (The latter could be a little beefed up IMO.) The turns are ONLY 80 seconds, with a chance to react every 40 seconds. These parameters can be debated, but Erik has put a lot of thought into this and his judgment should be respected. I honestly don't see orders changes happening in real life as often as some players claim to need to make them.
In the end all I'm saying is that if you put platoon orders in place for a game that details squads, give the player the tools to manage the squads as needed, with the penalties needed to make the player feel the burden of real command.  Otherwisw, why not make a platoon level game that doesn't show the squads or abstracts them.

The tools are there. They just aren't the surgical instruments you're used to. Blunt instruments for brutal business.

Also, as Prince of Eckmuhl noted above, the issues with squad manipulation become much more acute when forces are small. Were a battalion or division represented on the map, the clamor for more precise controls for squads wouldn't likely be present. But it is entirely proper to place the orders limits that presently exist. I've acknowledged on my own that certain exceptions should be made for squads or vehicles in certain situations being discussed, but the concept represented by platoon orders is a very sound one in my estimation. And the organizational freedom allowed to players in ASL and CM is very unrealistic; enough so that I could no longer tolerate playing them.
rickier65
Posts: 14241
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2000 8:00 am

RE: PzcK vs CMBB

Post by rickier65 »

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I thought regroup only applied to platoons.


It does. I ues it to order my platoon of PZIII's to advance (in wedge formation,. I had prev. order my platoon of HT's (loaded with passengers), to advance down the road in column formation.

Rick

User avatar
Mobius
Posts: 10339
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: California
Contact:

RE: PzcK vs CMBB

Post by Mobius »

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Was that CMBB or PCK?
It was PCK. I don't have CMBB.
All your Tanks are Belong to us!
panzer
thewood1
Posts: 9106
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: PzcK vs CMBB

Post by thewood1 »

I have heard you make several comments about CMBB.  I thought you had it and at least had played it.
User avatar
Mobius
Posts: 10339
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: California
Contact:

RE: PzcK vs CMBB

Post by Mobius »

I loaded the CMAK demo about 2 years ago for awhile and played its two scenarios. That is why I though CM only had a 1x1 map like PCK.
All your Tanks are Belong to us!
panzer
thewood1
Posts: 9106
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: PzcK vs CMBB

Post by thewood1 »

The point I am trying to make is the unneeded mechanics of the all the menus.  And I knew someone would jump on the planning thing.  That is why also so stated ad hoc.
 
The penalty of using independent squads shouldn't be make the player have to click more menus.  There are hot keys to obviate some of that.  My point is the unrealistic inflexibility it places on a player.
 
example:
 
I have a platoon that is charged with defending a cross roads.  I place a squad in a building 100 meters on a flank as flank coverage.  Now I want to shift coverage around for my HQ.  Or I want to move another squad.  I want one squad in defend and another in engage.  (I am still not quite sure what the difference is in a lot of the menus)  I have go back to that squad and say nevermind, this isn't for you.  It's even worse for a support weapons with a connection to another HQ. 
 
For as much as games like CM and SP allow too much control and flexibility, putting in a system that really only works well 80% of the time and is inflexible enough to change for the other 20% is about the same.  The other thing is just the shear number of commands that is needed to make this work.
 
Once again, it is not a bad system, and it works for the majority of the situations where platoon-level control is all that is needed.  But the effort that has to be expended to get the results needed should not be the penalty.  It should be an integrated penalty on my units ability to perform the order.  Another example of what I have seen in my plays of PCK:
 
I have an infantry platoon with a MG in support.  It is line abreast.  I need it to occupy a tree line 100m to the front.  The tree line is at 35 deg. from perpedicular ro the line of advance. 
 
In real life, I would just tell the platoon commander to occupy the tree line, but don't fire on anything closer than 100m, and stay out of sight and use this MG as your base of fire.  Fall back if you take heavy fire.  We will move on the the village up the road and deploy around the village.
 
In CMBB, I would group select the entire platoon and MG, give a move/advance command to the leader to the edge of the tree line.  I would then grab the waypoint of each unit, except the leader and move it out of the open and into the treeline.  I would give a cover arc of maybe 120 deg to the front and a range of 100m and hide.  btw, the MG becomes attached to the platoon HQ by default.  Any fallback has to wait for the 60 sec. for the turn to end.
 
Still new to PCK, so here is a try:
 
select the leader of the infantry platoon.  Select Defend/Move.  Put the end point on the tree line.  Now select each squad and make a new order to the tree line.  Then select the MG HQ.  Select Defend Move.  Put the MG HQ's line 1m away.  Now select the MG I want with the platoon and change its move point.  I assume I would then have to tell every to hold fire in the same sequence.  I then have to hope no one passes through during the action phases before I can tell then to go off hold fire in the same sequence.  I would also now have to be careful when I issue new orders to the MG HQ if it moves on the village and deploy because I will have to go back to the platoon MG and adjust its orders again.  Fallback can happen at any 40 sec. interval.
 
Have I got that right?  I actually tried that exact same thing in my test scenario and got my MG destroyed by accidently moving it.
User avatar
Mobius
Posts: 10339
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: California
Contact:

RE: PzcK vs CMBB

Post by Mobius »

ORIGINAL: thewood1
In CMBB, I would group select the entire platoon and MG, give a move/advance command to the leader to the edge of the tree line.  I would then grab the waypoint of each unit, except the leader and move it out of the open and into the treeline.  I would give a cover arc of maybe 120 deg to the front and a range of 100m and hide.  btw, the MG becomes attached to the platoon HQ by default.  Any fallback has to wait for the 60 sec. for the turn to end.
This range and arc thing is really wierd. I can't imagine anything in real life such precision would be a model of. Just how are these soldiers going to judge an angle?
That reminds me of what I didn't like about CM, the cadence. Like precise times of everything. And now distances.
All your Tanks are Belong to us!
panzer
PDiFolco
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:14 am

RE: PzcK vs CMBB

Post by PDiFolco »

ORIGINAL: Mobius
ORIGINAL: thewood1
In CMBB, I would group select the entire platoon and MG, give a move/advance command to the leader to the edge of the tree line. I would then grab the waypoint of each unit, except the leader and move it out of the open and into the treeline. I would give a cover arc of maybe 120 deg to the front and a range of 100m and hide. btw, the MG becomes attached to the platoon HQ by default. Any fallback has to wait for the 60 sec. for the turn to end.
This range and arc thing is really wierd. I can't imagine anything in real life such precision would be a model of. Just how are these soldiers going to judge an angle?
That reminds me of what I didn't like about CM, the cadence. Like precise times of everything. And now distances.

Sure it's (cover arc) a "precise exageration" of a real order - which would be "engage up to 500m, and watch the 9-12 quarter before the hill".
Covered arc is the technical gizmo that allows such a complex order to be given , note that the tac AI will sometimes override the order and engage outside.successfully in CM, maybe with "too much preciseness". There's nothing to even give a firing max range in PzC (like when I want an AT gun to open fire when it will be effective only).
Call me CM fanboi if you want but I never saw anything more ingenious in any game.

About the "cadence", yes, CM is an engineer's game, things are often way much more calculable than in reality. But as a gamer (I played PB/PL, SL, Steel Panthers,..) I happen to like this, mostly because it gives the competent player more satisfaction than seeing his plans work or not according to some random AI interpretation of what I wanted to do.

As thewoods1 said, we'll be able to have a successful "high level command" tac game when AI will have made some quantum leaps ahead, not yet even remotely imaginable from small wargame companies. In the meantime I prefer to pull the ropes myself [;)]



PDF
thewood1
Posts: 9106
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: PzcK vs CMBB

Post by thewood1 »

The covered arc is actually open to probability as well.  green units tend to fire early or ignore it all together.  If a significant threat appears outside the arc, more experience units may fire on it.  If you read action reports from combat, it was pretty common for range based orders to be given.  They might not have said 50 yards.  They might say anyone coming past that treeline open up on.  I hardly ever look at the range on the CA, I am usually using a landmark to run it to.  It is great for early east front armor ambushes where you want the tank to pass within a few yards and attck its side or rear.

Just like critical comments about PCK may be made in ignorance of the game, same is true of CMBB.

As Erik said about my test scenario, one play may not represent the actual product.  I am a little stunned Mobius has never played more than a demo scenario or two of CMAK.

CMBB has many issues that will never get fixed.  My main draw to PCK is that whatever issues it may have, Erik has shown a real willingness to listen to reasoned discussions and opinions.  If someone came to me today and asked what is a better game for east front tactical combat.  I would say in a vacuum, CMBB.  If they asked which one to buy, I would say PCK should be the first one.

btw, Mobius, I would suggest playing a little more CM. There is probability built into almost everything. Every penetration number has a random factor. Yes the formula may be more engineering oriented, but BFC recognized that probability plays a big role in the final outcome. That is why 5 76mm APC shots may bounce of the P4g, but the 6th penetrates. That randomness effects everything in CM, even spotting.
Capitaine
Posts: 1028
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:00 am

RE: PzcK vs CMBB

Post by Capitaine »

I have a platoon that is charged with defending a cross roads.  I place a squad in a building 100 meters on a flank as flank coverage.  Now I want to shift coverage around for my HQ.  Or I want to move another squad.  I want one squad in defend and another in engage.  (I am still not quite sure what the difference is in a lot of the menus)  I have go back to that squad and say nevermind, this isn't for you.  It's even worse for a support weapons with a connection to another HQ. 

I have agreed that a kind of detachment status may be appropriate for units placed in buildings.  I have seen this issue myself.  Most buildings seem to hold only one squad, maybe two, and the rest of the platoon has to do something else.  If there are no other buildings, their status could well need to be different from each other for reasons other than player convenience.

The building is actually a physical barrier that separates the squad from its platoon, and hence its command by the platoon. Much like if you set up a sniper in a bell tower, the sniper is pretty much independent now in what he targets, his stance, etc.

As for the ad hoc attachments, your CM example where an MG team automatically becomes part of a platoon doesn't necessarily strike me as realistic.  It sounds like that's what BFC wanted to happen so it worked similarly to ASL -- no restrictions at all.   Who, in real life, makes the decision to place a previously assigned MG team under a different command?  And are we sure that doing so isn't a result of "the borg mind" in operation?  I don't doubt that support teams were placed under the orders of other platoons, I'm just not sure it happens so fluidly.

I think we could probably identify those instances when the platoon orders really don't work well and carve something out that stays within the present game philosophy.  I think what you're seeing is some of us balking at the notion that we should just adopt the CM system and dispense with orders altogether.  The platoon orders is what really interests me in PCK, so I'll probably be defensive about it, obviously. [;)]
thewood1
Posts: 9106
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: PzcK vs CMBB

Post by thewood1 »

How many times to I have to say the PCK's platoon orders system is good.  Look at my recommendations.  No where do I say get rid of it.  In fact, my recommendations are somewhat a cross between the two.  And I do believe that having the fluidity to cross asign is better than almost no cross asign at all.
 
Why do you even need to be defensive about it.  Try re-reading my posts.  Open your mind a little.  I am not disagreeing with you.  What I'm saying is there is a flaw in the logic of how PCK does it that is just as flawed as CMBB.  Adopting a little of what CMBB does would cover a lot of that flaw up.  You don't have to be on one side or the other.  I am just trying to keep a discussion going about getting PCK over the hump and draw in some other CMBB players.
 
The one thing that does annoy me a little is people making assumptions about CMBB and dismissing it off hand.  I think Erik's been pretty open that CMBB is a good game.  PCK does some things better, but could learn a lot from CMBB still.
User avatar
Stridor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 11:01 am

RE: PzcK vs CMBB

Post by Stridor »

ORIGINAL: thewood1
PCK does some things better, but could learn a lot from CMBB still.

True, *I* have and do/did play CMBB although I came to the party relatively late. I wonder if PCK was released first and CMBB was second if CMBB wouldn't be having a harder time of it WRT critics/comparisons.

As you have said Matrix wants to continue to develop and refine this system provided of course it attains enough sales momentum to warrant further development. It is heartening to see that this discussion has remained relatively civil, I think that bodes well for the future.

Also as you have said the CMX1 system is now finished.

"The King is dead, long live the King!"

?

Regards

S.
thewood1
Posts: 9106
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: PzcK vs CMBB

Post by thewood1 »

I said exactly that a few posts ago.  This discussion would be happening on the BFC forums right now if it had come first.

I think even if it had been released within a year or two after, it would've be an easier road. But six years of community building is a lot to overcome. PC:WS didn't help a lot. It is/was a decent game, but was lacking the polish it needed to compete with CMBB. I know a lot of CMBB friends looked at PCWS and were turned off. I think if PCK had come out as an original, there would be even more buzz about it.

btw, in relation to CMBB's community, how many games can claim to still get at least a dozen relavent posts on the original developers website 6 or 7 years after release?

That is what PCK is competing against. If we want it to succeed, everyone has to be open minded and not just assume that CMBB doesn't have anything to offer just because you don't like a feature, the developers, graphics, etc. PCK needs to capture some BFC people to succeed and that means taking a hard look at CMBB and admitting it had something going for it.
User avatar
Mobius
Posts: 10339
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: California
Contact:

RE: PzcK vs CMBB

Post by Mobius »

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco
Sure it's (cover arc) a "precise exageration" of a real order - which would be "engage up to 500m, and watch the 9-12 quarter before the hill".
Covered arc is the technical gizmo that allows such a complex order to be given , note that the tac AI will sometimes override the order and engage outside.successfully in CM, maybe with "too much preciseness". There's nothing to even give a firing max range in PzC (like when I want an AT gun to open fire when it will be effective only).
Call me CM fanboi if you want but I never saw anything more ingenious in any game.
I was reading a book by a tank gunner and it told of the difficulty in judging precise ranges over 400 meters. They basically have to go by size of the tank and the number of mils it measures in their sights. Then do some quick math. Trying to sight to a range on flat land would be very difficult and prone to error.
This bring into question the ranges such as 1000yds or 1500yd stated in any AAR report unless attested to by AT or tank gunner or trained artillery observer.
All your Tanks are Belong to us!
panzer
PDiFolco
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:14 am

RE: PzcK vs CMBB

Post by PDiFolco »

Yeah Mobius, obviously there's much more fuzziness IRL than in our computerized battlefields.
What I just said is that the CM covered arc system is a fun and workable *game* mechanism to permit player to simulate the RL orders in a tac game.
Same for "freely attachable" support weapons, it's not really historical, but it works - imho better than the PzC system where they are to be operated in full platoons (contrary to real usage) or artificially split with 1 platoon = 1 weapon, which eventually gives the same result, ie they're free ! [:'(]


PDF
Capitaine
Posts: 1028
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:00 am

RE: PzcK vs CMBB

Post by Capitaine »

The reason why I argue with you, thewood, is because you don't express a lot of concern for command structure.  You say you want orders, but you want to give them to every unit as you see fit.  That isn't the order system of PCK.  It's the very "flexibility" you are demanding that I oppose.  Open your mind to the way of PCK.  Try to improve on its principles without losing the more rigid command structure that is its strength.
Post Reply

Return to “Panzer Command: Kharkov”