Matrix Games Forums

Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser TrailerDeal of the Week Alea Jacta Est
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: PzcK vs CMBB

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Panzer Command: Kharkov >> RE: PzcK vs CMBB Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 3:55:39 AM   
Stridor


Posts: 5074
Joined: 9/8/2007
Status: offline
Agree, at best case there is just one order for a platoon of squad size X, at worst case there is X orders.

So the total order count (C) per platoon of squad size X becomes 1 <= C <= X
For CM is not C = X?

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 151
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 4:19:40 AM   
Rick

 

Posts: 11831
Joined: 4/20/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Frankly, the platoon orders continue to annoy me.  Its not that I don't mind the concept, but I have to constantly make adjustments to orders.  Part of that is that the hot keys aren't second nature yet, but getting a platoon into a non-linear tree line is a click fest unless I want squads hanging out of cover.  This is what makes it artificial feelin.  If I could detach, with penalties, I would find it much more believable.


Hm - the worst case scenario with platoon orders is that you have to click once to move each squad to exactly where you want. Isn't this effectively the same as in CM where you're ordering individual squads?



I think the more I play with PC:K the more I appreciate the Platoon Order model. I'm not sure I totally agree with what orders are allowed, or that you have all the orders, but I think I like the approach. And as I play more I find myself actually giving fewer orders than I did in CMBB, I think. Mainly minor adjusments to alignment, like as wood says, lining up in woods line. Sometimes targeting if I have a specific need.

Rick


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 152
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 4:47:53 AM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 1132
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Frankly, the platoon orders continue to annoy me.  Its not that I don't mind the concept, but I have to constantly make adjustments to orders.  Part of that is that the hot keys aren't second nature yet, but getting a platoon into a non-linear tree line is a click fest unless I want squads hanging out of cover.  This is what makes it artificial feelin.  If I could detach, with penalties, I would find it much more believable.


Hm - the worst case scenario with platoon orders is that you have to click once to move each squad to exactly where you want. Isn't this effectively the same as in CM where you're ordering individual squads?



Yeah, you're right. I thought about it after you said that. I can't put my finger on it. It just seems to me to a little overly complicated.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 153
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 10:56:18 AM   
PDiFolco

 

Posts: 1136
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Frankly, the platoon orders continue to annoy me.  Its not that I don't mind the concept, but I have to constantly make adjustments to orders.  Part of that is that the hot keys aren't second nature yet, but getting a platoon into a non-linear tree line is a click fest unless I want squads hanging out of cover.  This is what makes it artificial feelin.  If I could detach, with penalties, I would find it much more believable.


Hm - the worst case scenario with platoon orders is that you have to click once to move each squad to exactly where you want. Isn't this effectively the same as in CM where you're ordering individual squads?



Not really it seems, because the possible order list for each squad depends on the HQ orders : I didn't find a way to make a squad "run" if the HQ doesn't. Then the HQ must "run in place" to a spot 1 m away, losing ability to fire.
That's a tad weird, or did I miss stg ?


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 154
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 1:11:17 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32550
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco
Not really it seems, because the possible order list for each squad depends on the HQ orders : I didn't find a way to make a squad "run" if the HQ doesn't. Then the HQ must "run in place" to a spot 1 m away, losing ability to fire.
That's a tad weird, or did I miss stg ?


You're still only issuing one order per squad if you micromanage, which is no worse than CM.

As far as Rushing, that's right - specialized orders like that are for the whole platoon, which is why you don't use them in cases where part or most of the platoon actually needs to remain stationary. For those situations, you use orders like Engage or Defend and use the move sub-order for the one squad that has to be mobile.

Regards,

- Erik


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to PDiFolco)
Post #: 155
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 1:45:06 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 1132
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
Actually it was a situation where the HQ had fallen behind the other units to engage something in LOS.  To get him to keep up, I had to issue a platoon order and then tell the other to only move 1 m.  That was a lot more work than in CM.  There are quite a few times where you need one unit to move a little to get LOS to an enemy that the rest of the platoon is engaging.  Certain orders don't allow an adjustment to a single unit, especially an HQ unit.  I had this happen a few times in my test scenarios.

In the end, the platoon order concept is a good one that forces some real world planning. But without the flexibility for some units, especially single AFVs with radios and support units, to detach and reattach, it does come across as an artificial mechanism.

In my mind, some combination of PCK's platoon orders and CMBBs command delays taht are based on unit experience and leadership skills would be the best.

< Message edited by thewood1 -- 4/30/2008 1:47:53 PM >

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 156
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 1:46:55 PM   
PDiFolco

 

Posts: 1136
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


quote:

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco
Not really it seems, because the possible order list for each squad depends on the HQ orders : I didn't find a way to make a squad "run" if the HQ doesn't. Then the HQ must "run in place" to a spot 1 m away, losing ability to fire.
That's a tad weird, or did I miss stg ?


You're still only issuing one order per squad if you micromanage, which is no worse than CM.

As far as Rushing, that's right - specialized orders like that are for the whole platoon, which is why you don't use them in cases where part or most of the platoon actually needs to remain stationary. For those situations, you use orders like Engage or Defend and use the move sub-order for the one squad that has to be mobile.

Regards,

- Erik



Not to be nitpicky, but it makes mot much sense in some cases, such as running to cover when 1 squad is caught in the open y enemy fire. The guys should be able to run on their own or when told so, not because they see their CO do the same !


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 157
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 1:48:19 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32550
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Actually it was a situation where the HQ had fallen behind the other units to engage something in LOS.  To get him to keep up, I had to issue a platoon order and then tell the other to only move 1 m.


Why not just use Engage -> Move and Engage -> Hold?

quote:

That was a lot more work than in CM.  There are quite a few times where you need one unit to move a little to get LOS to an enemy that the rest of the platoon is engaging.  Certain orders don't allow an adjustment to a single unit, especially an HQ unit.  I had this happen a few times in my test scenarios.


That's ideally what Engage -> Move and Defend -> Move are intended for. I understand your point now though - if you're adjusting the HQ unit and its orders propagate, then you can find a situation where the number of orders required would be higher. That's not all that oommon though and I think the cases where you can just issue a platoon order without micro-adjustment evens that out.


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 158
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 1:49:19 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 1132
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
My other question is how can you not micrmanage?  As you move forward, you should have your units in or close to cover.  You will always have to adjust your individual squads and units to account for that.

(in reply to PDiFolco)
Post #: 159
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 1:49:40 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32550
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco
Not to be nitpicky, but it makes mot much sense in some cases, such as running to cover when 1 squad is caught in the open y enemy fire. The guys should be able to run on their own or when told so, not because they see their CO do the same !


Not to be nitpicky, but how did they get caught in the open far enough from cover that they need to Rush when the rest of the platoon from your description is already set in place? If platoon cohesion is maintained, this should rarely ever be an issue.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to PDiFolco)
Post #: 160
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 1:52:26 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32550
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
My other question is how can you not micrmanage?  As you move forward, you should have your units in or close to cover.  You will always have to adjust your individual squads and units to account for that.


I find that I really only micromanage when I'm both moving and under fire. When I'm stationary and under fire, I generally can either let my units auto-target or only adjust their targeting once per turn or two. When I'm moving and not under fire, I don't really care as much about my precise location as long as I'm moving in the right direction, so the platoon movement type orders without micro-management are fine for moving to contact. I would say the majority of orders I issue over the course of an entire battle do not involve me going back and adjusting each individual squad, but there are probably a few turns where for some platoons I'm making many adjustments.

Also, I use the Regroup order to keep my platoon formation the way I like it so that they stay together in good cohesion and facing the right way formation-wise. This tends to minimize the need for later movement-based micromanagement.

Regards,

- Erik


< Message edited by Erik Rutins -- 4/30/2008 1:53:25 PM >


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 161
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 2:53:41 PM   
PDiFolco

 

Posts: 1136
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


quote:

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco
Not to be nitpicky, but it makes mot much sense in some cases, such as running to cover when 1 squad is caught in the open y enemy fire. The guys should be able to run on their own or when told so, not because they see their CO do the same !


Not to be nitpicky, but how did they get caught in the open far enough from cover that they need to Rush when the rest of the platoon from your description is already set in place? If platoon cohesion is maintained, this should rarely ever be an issue.


I agree, the problems with the platoon commands are not that frequent, but due to the relative inflexibility of the system, several "special" cases have to be handled with more or less fake/gamey methods, such as running in place. It's not a game breaker but it's an inconvenience, a more open/flexible system would handle it better.
And while that's rare to have widely separated inf squads, what about tanks and transports ? Platoon default move orders to move everyone 200m right ahead (or to the left), make not much sense when the units are 200m apart and always have to be cancelled and redone. I'd still prefer to do it only once per unit properly (and even in CM you could give a PzC like platoon move order by double clicking on the HQ, set the order and target, so it's not even an unique time saving feature).

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 162
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 4:58:57 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 1132
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
I just played my same scenario from the Soviet side.  The germans rushed a bunch of HTs and infantry forward that were quickly dispatched by the SU76s.  I kept the the SU76s back in overwatch while I moved the rifle company down the RR track.  I captured that flag.  I was unable to get the infantry and T70s acroos the field in any semblence of order and that attack feel apart once it crossed the treeline on the road.  btw, 5 of 6 SU76s were killed between T4 and T7 without hitting any of the P4s firing on them.  I checked their morale/experience.  They were all veteran.  To say the least, I did not fair well.  It took a little longer than as playing as germans, and I scored a few more points, but the end result was only slightly less lopsided.

I think the next time I try this as soviets, I will get the SU76s into cover immediately.  The 76 should be able to penetrate the P4g more times than not, but if it can't hit or penetrate, they can't trade blows with the P4s.

I also had a very difficult time getting the HQ of the company on the RR tracks to mount the station.  Tried a few different times and approaches, but to no avail.

Conclusion:  It isn't necessarily the AI that caused the lopsided german victory (or my tactical skills).  It would seem this particular setup favors the germans.  Also keep in mind I left the setup as scemario default.  Adjustments would have helped.  One issue I had was trying to set an ambush by my T70 to catch a P4 in the flank.  If I put it on hold fire, the P4 usually came in and out of sight too fast for me to react.  If I took it off hold, it would pummel away on a hapless HMG team until the P4 showed up to blow it apart.  I tried this ambush several times.  What I would like to do is force it to face a certain way and not change.  Any suggestions on this is well received.

I am going to try the CMBB scenario and see if the outcome changes much.

edit: I just had a thought of changing the SUs to T34s and see what happens.

< Message edited by thewood1 -- 4/30/2008 5:01:02 PM >

(in reply to PDiFolco)
Post #: 163
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 5:01:24 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 1132
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
I never thought of using regroup.  I'll try it.  Does it move the squads or the HQ?

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 164
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 5:03:03 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 8842
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rick
I think the more I play with PC:K the more I appreciate the Platoon Order model. I'm not sure I totally agree with what orders are allowed, or that you have all the orders, but I think I like the approach. And as I play more I find myself actually giving fewer orders than I did in CMBB, I think. Mainly minor adjusments to alignment, like as wood says, lining up in woods line. Sometimes targeting if I have a specific need.
Rick

No ones ever been completely satisfied with the order system. It was designed to have the individual elements behave in some realistic fashion. Not like 3 or 5 independent entities but as a unit. From earliest warfare armies were made up of soldiers trained to fight as a unit not as individual gladiators. The orders are meant to be simple commands that might be barked out in as few words as possible. The limit to the number of different types of orders was just to keep things simple enough for people to remember and to be playable. This is the idea of the orders rule. They however can not cover every possible case. But giving separate complicated orders to 4 other tanks would take at least the entire 40 second orders phase. The enemy which was listening would know the entire plan of attack.

The Defend order would be the equivalent of the modern Overwatch. The Engage order probably would be something ordered when in close proximity of the enemy. Maybe some unit needs to move up a street a short way from the group. Rush could either be a Charge order to close with the enemy or Rush to some covering position


_____________________________

All your Tanks are Belong to us!

(in reply to Rick)
Post #: 165
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 5:13:59 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32550
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
5 of 6 SU76s were killed between T4 and T7 without hitting any of the P4s firing on them.  I checked their morale/experience.  They were all veteran.  I think the next time I try this as soviets, I will get the SU76s into cover immediately.  The 76 should be able to penetrate the P4g more times than not, but if it can't hit or penetrate, they can't trade blows with the P4s.


It can certainly hit and penetrate the Panzer IVG, though once you get over 700m or so the odds go down.

quote:

I also had a very difficult time getting the HQ of the company on the RR tracks to mount the station.  Tried a few different times and approaches, but to no avail.


Odd - I'll try that myself when I give it a run through tonight. Were there already two squads mounted in it perchance?

quote:

Also keep in mind I left the setup as scemario default.  Adjustments would have helped.


This is certainly true I'm sure of both PCK and CM. The default PCK random battle placements are generally workable, but usually you will want to adjust.

quote:

If I put it on hold fire, the P4 usually came in and out of sight too fast for me to react.  If I took it off hold, it would pummel away on a hapless HMG team until the P4 showed up to blow it apart.


Sounds like a tough situation with the Panzer IV moving in and out of sight so quickly (I assume it's only in sight for a portion of a phase) - so even on Hold Fire -> Good Shot it would pummel away at the HMG team? How close was the HMG? The T-70s rate of fire and initiative may also be such that the crew just can't take advantage of a brief opportunity shot.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 166
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 5:15:08 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32550
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
I never thought of using regroup.  I'll try it.  Does it move the squads or the HQ?


It moves them all - you tell the HQ where you want it to go, pick the formation and the other squads adjust their move orders to arrange themselves based on the HQ move target. They'll end up in the formation you chose and facing in the direction you want based on what direction you told the HQ to move in.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 167
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 5:33:10 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 1132
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
I never thought of using regroup.  I'll try it.  Does it move the squads or the HQ?


It moves them all - you tell the HQ where you want it to go, pick the formation and the other squads adjust their move orders to arrange themselves based on the HQ move target. They'll end up in the formation you chose and facing in the direction you want based on what direction you told the HQ to move in.

Regards,

- Erik


Instead of dancing around this let me tell you the exact situation:

I had the three P4s bounding and the lead two came into LOS of the three SU76s on the road. The HQ was may 50 - 100m behind in overwatch. I told the lead tanks to halt in reaction. They engaged the SUs, but the HQ stayed behind cover and didn't have LOS. It might have moved a little but still didn't have LOS. had to issue a move order to the HQ and then go cancel the order to the other two.

Maybe I am doing something wrong. It is not the only time I was in that situation in the game. If I am doing something wrong, it just seems the mutiple menus and multitude of orders in overly complicated and not intuitive. One suggestion is that if a unit is out of command throw the penalties at it, but seperate it from its HQ after a certain range and then reattach it within that range.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 168
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 5:44:42 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 598
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

No ones ever been completely satisfied with the order system. It was designed to have the individual elements behave in some realistic fashion. Not like 3 or 5 independent entities but as a unit. From earliest warfare armies were made up of soldiers trained to fight as a unit not as individual gladiators. The orders are meant to be simple commands that might be barked out in as few words as possible. The limit to the number of different types of orders was just to keep things simple enough for people to remember and to be playable. This is the idea of the orders rule. They however can not cover every possible case. But giving separate complicated orders to 4 other tanks would take at least the entire 40 second orders phase. The enemy which was listening would know the entire plan of attack.

The Defend order would be the equivalent of the modern Overwatch. The Engage order probably would be something ordered when in close proximity of the enemy. Maybe some unit needs to move up a street a short way from the group. Rush could either be a Charge order to close with the enemy or Rush to some covering position



Hear, hear! And this is why I support the Orders so strongly. The precise terms can be debated, but the concept is spot on.

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 169
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 5:47:48 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 598
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Maybe I am doing something wrong. It is not the only time I was in that situation in the game. If I am doing something wrong, it just seems the mutiple menus and multitude of orders in overly complicated and not intuitive. One suggestion is that if a unit is out of command throw the penalties at it, but seperate it from its HQ after a certain range and then reattach it within that range.


This is not a bad idea at all.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 170
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 5:58:09 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 1132
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
I think the platoon orders also make sense, as long as they are not artificially restrictive.   Right now PCK seems to have gone a little too far.  It restricts or makes difficult some real world tactics with restrictions a commander in the field would not have.  I have always thought command delays struck a nice balance of simulating a command net, or lack there of. 

Platoon orders is a good idea, but right now, there no inherent flexibility in the system.  And, in some ways it doesn't do enough.  If all I have to do is one or two more clicks, what is the point?  Instead of trying to reflect a real world limitation, you are just making a player click through a few more times.

In my mind, the platoon orders system is kept the same as it is, but add detach/attach, morale penelties based on communications capabilities, experience, training, and current morale.  Add in delays based on the same parameters.  Now you have a flexible system where the player has to make coices, plan ahead, can react, and has the flexibility to put troops where they are needed, not based on whether he wants to deal with the menu system.

Without some of these things added, it really is only a less flexible menu burden, not a true command burden.

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 171
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 6:08:29 PM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2449
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

I agree, the problems with the platoon commands are not that frequent, but due to the relative inflexibility of the system, several "special" cases have to be handled with more or less fake/gamey methods, such as running in place. It's not a game breaker but it's an inconvenience, a more open/flexible system would handle it better.
And while that's rare to have widely separated inf squads, what about tanks and transports ? Platoon default move orders to move everyone 200m right ahead (or to the left), make not much sense when the units are 200m apart and always have to be cancelled and redone. I'd still prefer to do it only once per unit properly (and even in CM you could give a PzC like platoon move order by double clicking on the HQ, set the order and target, so it's not even an unique time saving feature).


I don't see the platoon orders the same way that you do. Rather than a framework for manipulating individual units, it's a stance that's issued to the platoon leader, one that he's committed to managing each turn. So, if the leader is given a RUSH order, he manages the movement. Even if he's already in place, and had the opportunity, for instance, to fire on hostiles, he doesn't because that's not what he's focused on.

I realize that what I describe above can SEVERELY limit the ability of individual squads/crews/vehicles to respond to events that they may encounter. But, I consider that a reasonable sacrifice to rid the game of one of the sillier aspects of some other games, those being the ones that allow players to plot the precise actions, in great detail, of dozens (or more) individual squads, vehicles and crews.

The platoon orders routine incorporated into PCK appears to be a compromise of sorts that allows for some reasonable handling of larger unit actions. On the other hand, in an infantry, platoon vs platoon action, some of the limitations in play with the PC-engine could appear to a reasonable person to be genuinely onerous. Of course, if I were looking for a contest at that scale, I'd likely turn to the Close Combat series, as I consider it superior for those purposes.

Were the maps to be made larger, however, ones that could accommodate division-sized actions, I don't think that anyone would grouse about the platoon orders. They'd work great. You'd still have a limited contingent of folks that would insist on CM-style micro-order-management, but it'd be a lot harder to defend, IMO. Of course, too, you'd have another little scrum of folks who would be looking for COMPANY ORDERS!

In the meantime...you've got this game that is gonna leave some folks feeling a little flat as the scenario OOB diminishes in size. Conversely, as the level of units deployed increases, the game can soar, particularly for mobile actions, so long as you're willing to entertain the concepts embodied in PCK as relates to the role of platoon leaders in tactical (or grand-tactical) combat. PCK isn't a squad/vehicle/crew-level game with platoon orders, it's a platoon-level game with orders for individual squads, vehicles and crews.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)


_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to PDiFolco)
Post #: 172
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 6:13:47 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 598
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline
On attaching and detaching, isn't this beyond the scope of the game?  To actually detach a unit, or attach it to another command, would take time and communications.  The game encompasses only a number of minutes where the command decisions have mostly been made.  To permit attachment/detachment "on the fly" would basically permit completely independent action as desired -- that isn't the focus of the game.  Orders are supposed to straightjacket you to some extent; not just act as a shorthand way to facilitate your control of units.  The mixing of units (like attaching a HMG to a rifle platoon) would be something I'd imagine should take place during set up or scenario start, not on the field.

That said, it's conceivable to me that some caveats might make some sense.  Like your idea about being so far out of command a squad becomes de facto "independent" (albeit hobbled in when and what it can do).   Squads left in buildings, too, might be due some latitude to act in a more detached fashion.

I'd like to keep the individual maneuver elements tied to the actions of the higher command, requiring the player to think at the platoon level and feel the yoke of command, yet also allow for some situations which necessitate some independent activity.  Those exceptions shouldn't be allowed, if possible, to skirt the intent of the command rules however.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 173
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 6:41:25 PM   
PDiFolco

 

Posts: 1136
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline
There's no more reason to decide that "in general", "the platoon" is THE base unit that behaves as a whole than there are to say that it's the Company, or any other level down to the individual guy : it depends on the period and the army.
Soviets where at start company-level , then progressed towards platoon-level. Germans were "platoon-level" mostly , but squads were able to operate on own initiative if needed.And so on, all armies had their doctrine.
So I'm not at all convinced than one-size-fits-all is a good idea. Giving orders at the "base unit" level (squad/team/vehicle) has the advantage of simplicity, but loses chain of command constraints. Now constraining orders at a given higher level loses simplicity, and put artificial or wrong constraints when the "real" doctrine or "on the field" order level was not the platoon.
We need more flexibility.


(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 174
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 6:58:47 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 8842
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
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? 

(in reply to PDiFolco)
Post #: 175
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 7:04:16 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 1132
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
If TacAI were perfect we would command at battalion level and just give orders.  As mentoined before, CMBB puts you as Batt, company, platoon, and in many cases squad commander.  PCK tries to remove the squad command with out providing the perfect TacAI or the other tools needed at that level. 

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.  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.

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.

I can tell you right now, in an attack by the soviets in BFC, you keep your commanders nearby because it will fail.  While the platoon command structure is not very rigid, it is flexible enough to allow ad hoc attaching and detaching, with sometimes severe penalties that depend on nation, experience, and morale.

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.

(in reply to PDiFolco)
Post #: 176
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 7:08:59 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 1132
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

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. But If I know I am going to contact the enemy, I giving each squad orders. And If I need to leave a squad in a building or a MG on a hill to cover an approach, I don't go to the HQ of the weapons company and set an order that has nothing to do with it or the rest of the company. I give the order to the MG team directly.

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.

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 177
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 7:12:03 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 1132
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
Here is my game in CMBB as the Soviets.

The main difference in this game was I rushed the rifle company on the RR tracks to the station and held it with supporting fire from the SU76s. They all got killed quicker than in my germen game, and only killed one P4. The main difference is my rushing infantry to both flags early, setting up a defense and hammering the AIs infantry assaults. Once again, all Soviet armor was destroyed, but getting to the flags early won the game.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 178
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 7:15:52 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 8842
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
quote:

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.


(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 179
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 7:21:53 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 8842
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
The main difference in this game was I rushed the rifle company on the RR tracks to the station and held it with supporting fire from the SU76s. They all got killed quicker than in my germen game, and only killed one P4. The main difference is my rushing infantry to both flags early, setting up a defense and hammering the AIs infantry assaults. Once again, all Soviet armor was destroyed, but getting to the flags early won the game.
I got about 2/3 through the mission as soviets. I've got the RR station but the center flag was captured by the German armor. Lost 4 SU-76 for damaging one PZIV. Next time I have to either hit the german tanks from two sides at once or get closer. Firefighting with them over 650m partially through woods is not a winning tactic.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Panzer Command: Kharkov >> RE: PzcK vs CMBB Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.152