If I Own CMBB why get PCO?

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Pford

There is no Dance of Death while entire platoons of tanks reverse into each other and then are shot to junk by the enemy.

But they do reverse sometimes, right? This is crucial if one is playing without the reaction phase.

Yes. that is the Withdraw order. With that the entire platoon withdraws. After issuing you can go to each unit and alter by how much to go back. In the 40:40 second turns besides the Withdraw order at the first phase you can select a unit to make an emergency withdraw in the Reaction phase. Other units in the platoon would continue to do what they were ordered.

[Pford]

I meant during the 60 second turn.[;)] A Panzer MK3 rounds the corner of a row of Dachas at the 20 second mark and finds itself looking at the slowly revolving turret of an IS-2. What next?

[spellir74]

Depending on who saw who first...

The PzIII would sight and shoot at point blank. If it scored first it could diminish the IS2's ability (temporarily or permanently). The IS2 would sight the PzIII and depending on accuracy, range, penetrations, and armor values and some dice --mitigated by whether it was just hit or not-- it could destroy the PzIII.

Better to use grenadiers or etc to fish out enemy (as in real life). And use 40 sec turns.[:D]

This is a company or higher scale tactical game. It is an abstraction of how you deploy as group commander. If you sent a tank down a road without support it is _likely_ that it would be destroyed, regardless of the quick skills of any given human inside a tank.

If you are the actual doomed tanker it is possible that you --the doomed-by-your-dumb-commander tanker-- might be able to use your quick reflexes and good luck (ie exploitation of the other guy's bad hand eye or distraction) to survive that one moment.

But...

You deploy as a commander of groups. It isn't a shooter.

What you are asking entails having each vehicle be a first person hero --but by AI scope. If all vehicles pull back by AI deployment when they fault-er then how do any of them ever die? How do you as commander get scored?

[[hirr]Leto]

Should I bother playing Winter Storm or Kharkov, or have the changes made it difficult to compare to what Osfront will be like?

Cheers!

Leto

[jamespcrowley]

ORIGINAL: spellir74

Depending on who saw who first...

The PzIII would sight and shoot at point blank. If it scored first it could diminish the IS2's ability (temporarily or permanently). The IS2 would sight the PzIII and depending on accuracy, range, penetrations, and armor values and some dice --mitigated by whether it was just hit or not-- it could destroy the PzIII.

Better to use grenadiers or etc to fish out enemy (as in real life). And use 40 sec turns.[:D]

This is a company or higher scale tactical game. It is an abstraction of how you deploy as group commander. If you sent a tank down a road without support it is _likely_ that it would be destroyed, regardless of the quick skills of any given human inside a tank.

If you are the actual doomed tanker it is possible that you --the doomed-by-your-dumb-commander tanker-- might be able to use your quick reflexes and good luck (ie exploitation of the other guy's bad hand eye or distraction) to survive that one moment.

But...

You deploy as a commander of groups. It isn't a shooter.

What you are asking entails having each vehicle be a first person hero --but by AI scope. If all vehicles pull back by AI deployment when they fault-er then how do any of them ever die? How do you as commander get scored?

Hmm....I beg to differ.

A heavy/medium tank, as in the example quoted, may well do as you suggested. However, if a lightly armoured vehicle such as an APC, a scout car or a light tank rounded a corner and spotted an enemy tank that obviously totally out-classed it, it would make perfect sense for it to withdraw immediately, assuming the commanddr didn't have a death wish. In that instance, AI controlled self-preservation would be preferable to merely sitting there awaiting further orders which is totally unrealistic at any tactical level.

CM may have exagerated that tendancy but, I would suggest, that too much is better than not at all. Just my two pennys worth.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: [hirr]Leto
Should I bother playing Winter Storm or Kharkov, or have the changes made it difficult to compare to what Osfront will be like?

Personally, I'd wait for Ostfront at this point.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: James Crowley
CM may have exagerated that tendancy but, I would suggest, that too much is better than not at all. Just my two pennys worth.

This is the original function of the Reaction phase and 40 second rather than 60 second phases. I agree that now that other turn structures are possible, we'll want to add more of some kind of TacAI. I think a conditions-based one makes more sense than a completely automatic one, but this will be part of the discussion for the next release. You can also play 40 second turns with no reaction phase, which mitigates such issues. It's worth noting that there were plenty of historical instances where the reaction time of the crew in the just-ambushed tank took 10, 20 or even 60 seconds before a real withdrawal (or other appropriate response) commenced. I do question the realism of immediate reactions while acknowledging that increased TacAI becomes necessary as the length of time between player orders increases.

Regards,

- Erik

[JMass]

ORIGINAL: James Crowley
In that instance, AI controlled self-preservation would be preferable to merely sitting there awaiting further orders which is totally unrealistic at any tactical level.

Here 40 seconds phases work perfectly, I prefer to give personally a withdrawn order in the reaction phase rather to put my tanks in the AI's hands, historically 5 Shermans could destroy a Tiger (or some Pz IIIs a KV-II) but if a tactical AI doesn't permit this something could be wrong.

[Mad Russian]

After months of game play and wanting the 60 second turns, I too found that I much prefer the 80 second turn with a break at 40 seconds. To allow me to give survival orders. That surprised everyone since I was the most vocal advocate for the 60 second turns. It surprised me most of all.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Zemke]

Lots of old friends here from my CM Blitz days, hey Leto, G, MR.  Thanks MR for the scenario, it played well.  I was deployed about mid-way through it, so I missed the second half.

Man....PCO, back to tactical wargaming.  Sounds like I need to get a new machine to play it, but I was planning on that in the next month anyway.

All these great games to be released by Matrix, is all an evil plot to get my money and cause a divorce.  Matrix is killing me, now there are three games I want when released, PCO, War in the East, and Decisive Campaigns: The Blitzkrieg from Warsaw to Paris.

[Mad Russian]

Yeah, looks like you better fuel up that little Wolfpack ride of yours to cover all that and still play WiPAE too.  [X(]

Good Hunting.

MR

[[hirr]Leto]

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

Lots of old friends here from my CM Blitz days, hey Leto, G, MR.  Thanks MR for the scenario, it played well.  I was deployed about mid-way through it, so I missed the second half.

Man....PCO, back to tactical wargaming.  Sounds like I need to get a new machine to play it, but I was planning on that in the next month anyway.

All these great games to be released by Matrix, is all an evil plot to get my money and cause a divorce.  Matrix is killing me, now there are three games I want when released, PCO, War in the East, and Decisive Campaigns: The Blitzkrieg from Warsaw to Paris.

Wow, you back for good now Z?

Happy to see you around M8!

Leto

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: James Crowley
A heavy/medium tank, as in the example quoted, may well do as you suggested. However, if a lightly armoured vehicle such as an APC, a scout car or a light tank rounded a corner and spotted an enemy tank that obviously totally out-classed it, it would make perfect sense for it to withdraw immediately, assuming the commanddr didn't have a death wish. In that instance, AI controlled self-preservation would be preferable to merely sitting there awaiting further orders which is totally unrealistic at any tactical level.

Might work. Might not. Once you realize the situation do you order a halt? Come to a dead stop, then back up slowly? Or do you order "driver forward" and head like hell down the next alley? Or does the crew just bail out on the spot? Gamers probably wouldn't like it when the AI does that.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

Lots of old friends here from my CM Blitz days, hey Leto, G, MR.  Thanks MR for the scenario, it played well.  I was deployed about mid-way through it, so I missed the second half.

Beginning to look like Old Home Week around here with everybody starting to drop by and take a look at PCO. Can't wait until we can all kick the tires and do battle!

Good Hunting.

MR

[jamespcrowley]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: James Crowley
A heavy/medium tank, as in the example quoted, may well do as you suggested. However, if a lightly armoured vehicle such as an APC, a scout car or a light tank rounded a corner and spotted an enemy tank that obviously totally out-classed it, it would make perfect sense for it to withdraw immediately, assuming the commanddr didn't have a death wish. In that instance, AI controlled self-preservation would be preferable to merely sitting there awaiting further orders which is totally unrealistic at any tactical level.

Might work. Might not. Once you realize the situation do you order a halt? Come to a dead stop, then back up slowly? Or do you order "driver forward" and head like hell down the next alley? Or does the crew just bail out on the spot? Gamers probably wouldn't like it when the AI does that.

The problem is that there are scores, if not hundreds, of diffferent circumstances where AFVs 'meet' and only a limited set of rules to deal with those situations.

In CM, having a generic 'all overmatched vehicles automatically retreat' stance could lead to frustrations especially with ambush situations but, on the other hand, it did allow the lighter stuff to have a chance of getting away. As I understand it, PC tends to work the opposite way. So neither solution is good for all sitautions.

What is good is that PC is being supported and developed going forward so, as Erik stated above, some form of condition-based AI could be devised to provide reactions which are more appropriate to particular circumstances. Doubtful that every type of encounter could be catered for but, especially at this level of combat, almost anything can happen and frequently did. Assuming that players want something with more than just a nod in the direction of realism, then they will have to expect some loss of control in some situations.

[Geordie]

ORIGINAL: James Crowley

ORIGINAL: spellir74

Depending on who saw who first...

The PzIII would sight and shoot at point blank. If it scored first it could diminish the IS2's ability (temporarily or permanently). The IS2 would sight the PzIII and depending on accuracy, range, penetrations, and armor values and some dice --mitigated by whether it was just hit or not-- it could destroy the PzIII.

Better to use grenadiers or etc to fish out enemy (as in real life). And use 40 sec turns.[:D]

This is a company or higher scale tactical game. It is an abstraction of how you deploy as group commander. If you sent a tank down a road without support it is _likely_ that it would be destroyed, regardless of the quick skills of any given human inside a tank.

If you are the actual doomed tanker it is possible that you --the doomed-by-your-dumb-commander tanker-- might be able to use your quick reflexes and good luck (ie exploitation of the other guy's bad hand eye or distraction) to survive that one moment.

But...

You deploy as a commander of groups. It isn't a shooter.

What you are asking entails having each vehicle be a first person hero --but by AI scope. If all vehicles pull back by AI deployment when they fault-er then how do any of them ever die? How do you as commander get scored?

Hmm....I beg to differ.

A heavy/medium tank, as in the example quoted, may well do as you suggested. However, if a lightly armoured vehicle such as an APC, a scout car or a light tank rounded a corner and spotted an enemy tank that obviously totally out-classed it, it would make perfect sense for it to withdraw immediately, assuming the commanddr didn't have a death wish. In that instance, AI controlled self-preservation would be preferable to merely sitting there awaiting further orders which is totally unrealistic at any tactical level.

CM may have exagerated that tendancy but, I would suggest, that too much is better than not at all. Just my two pennys worth.

Pete

Ive been playing it a bit to get used to it again, but to be honest, the more I read here, the less like the game Im playing right now it looks. I think the changes are so great I will be playing a different game entirely when it arrives.

For me, the biggest thing is that it will play on more modern machines.

[Geordie]

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

Lots of old friends here from my CM Blitz days, hey Leto, G, MR.  Thanks MR for the scenario, it played well.  I was deployed about mid-way through it, so I missed the second half.

Man....PCO, back to tactical wargaming.  Sounds like I need to get a new machine to play it, but I was planning on that in the next month anyway.

All these great games to be released by Matrix, is all an evil plot to get my money and cause a divorce.  Matrix is killing me, now there are three games I want when released, PCO, War in the East, and Decisive Campaigns: The Blitzkrieg from Warsaw to Paris.

Hiya matey.

Good to see your back in the land of the Free/Brave or whatever its called these days. I was deployed last year too but in the South Atlantic winter (made a good change).

I think this may just be the East Front game weve been wanting........

[[hirr]Leto]

ORIGINAL: Geordie

ORIGINAL: James Crowley

ORIGINAL: spellir74

Depending on who saw who first...

The PzIII would sight and shoot at point blank. If it scored first it could diminish the IS2's ability (temporarily or permanently). The IS2 would sight the PzIII and depending on accuracy, range, penetrations, and armor values and some dice --mitigated by whether it was just hit or not-- it could destroy the PzIII.

Better to use grenadiers or etc to fish out enemy (as in real life). And use 40 sec turns.[:D]

This is a company or higher scale tactical game. It is an abstraction of how you deploy as group commander. If you sent a tank down a road without support it is _likely_ that it would be destroyed, regardless of the quick skills of any given human inside a tank.

If you are the actual doomed tanker it is possible that you --the doomed-by-your-dumb-commander tanker-- might be able to use your quick reflexes and good luck (ie exploitation of the other guy's bad hand eye or distraction) to survive that one moment.

But...

You deploy as a commander of groups. It isn't a shooter.

What you are asking entails having each vehicle be a first person hero --but by AI scope. If all vehicles pull back by AI deployment when they fault-er then how do any of them ever die? How do you as commander get scored?

Hmm....I beg to differ.

A heavy/medium tank, as in the example quoted, may well do as you suggested. However, if a lightly armoured vehicle such as an APC, a scout car or a light tank rounded a corner and spotted an enemy tank that obviously totally out-classed it, it would make perfect sense for it to withdraw immediately, assuming the commanddr didn't have a death wish. In that instance, AI controlled self-preservation would be preferable to merely sitting there awaiting further orders which is totally unrealistic at any tactical level.

CM may have exagerated that tendancy but, I would suggest, that too much is better than not at all. Just my two pennys worth.

Pete

Ive been playing it a bit to get used to it again, but to be honest, the more I read here, the less like the game Im playing right now it looks. I think the changes are so great I will be playing a different game entirely when it arrives.

For me, the biggest thing is that it will play on more modern machines.

Thanks, that is what I thought. I am looking forward to this as well.

Also, I would like to support Thomm here with regards to keeping things on a compare and contrast only type of posting regimen in the spirit of constructive debate. I think criticisms of other companies are not necessary and kind of classless. I do not see the culture of this forum supporting that kind of thing, which is nice to see.

Cheers!

Leto

[Pford]

In CM, having a generic 'all overmatched vehicles automatically retreat' stance could lead to frustrations especially with ambush situations but, on the other hand, it did allow the lighter stuff to have a chance of getting away. As I understand it, PC tends to work the opposite way. So neither solution is good for all sitautions.

Haven't fired up CMBB in two years but I recall that a tank would shift into reverse even if it had mis-IDed the threat. E.g., mistaking a MK4 for a Tiger. Which begs the question: will crews in PCO make the same error? Realistically in CM, the tendency was to exaggerate that threat.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, the auto-reverse feature was added in a patch for CMBO or CMBB.

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Pford

In CM, having a generic 'all overmatched vehicles automatically retreat' stance could lead to frustrations especially with ambush situations but, on the other hand, it did allow the lighter stuff to have a chance of getting away. As I understand it, PC tends to work the opposite way. So neither solution is good for all sitautions.

Haven't fired up CMBB in two years but I recall that a tank would shift into reverse even if it had mis-IDed the threat. E.g., mistaking a MK4 for a Tiger. Which begs the question: will crews in PCO make the same error? Realistically in CM, the tendency was to exaggerate that threat.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, the auto-reverse feature was added in a patch for CMBO or CMBB.

In this release Units don't mis-identify a vehicle. though units might not identify an enemy unit and just see a "?" instead of the actual unit type.

Thanks
Rick