Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!
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  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 7:47:05 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 1349
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
Was that CMBB or PCK?

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 181
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 7:51:58 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 1349
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

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.



Anyone reading my quote, please go up and read the rest. Here it is a little out of context.

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 182
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 8:13:36 PM   
Rick

 

Posts: 12286
Joined: 4/20/2000
Status: offline

quote:

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



(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 183
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 8:20:48 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 1349
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
I thought regroup only applied to platoons.

(in reply to Rick)
Post #: 184
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 8:46:08 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 599
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 185
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 8:59:13 PM   
Rick

 

Posts: 12286
Joined: 4/20/2000
Status: offline

quote:

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


(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 186
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 9:09:03 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 9151
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Was that CMBB or PCK?
It was PCK. I don't have CMBB.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 187
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 9:32:51 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 1349
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
I have heard you make several comments about CMBB.  I thought you had it and at least had played it.

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 188
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 9:50:56 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 9151
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: online
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.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 189
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 10:09:07 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 1349
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 190
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 10:39:30 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 9151
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: online
quote:

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.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 191
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 10:52:51 PM   
PDiFolco

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

quote:

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




(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 192
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 11:09:41 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 1349
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by thewood1 -- 4/30/2008 11:13:15 PM >

(in reply to PDiFolco)
Post #: 193
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 11:10:39 PM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 599
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

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.

< Message edited by Capitaine -- 4/30/2008 11:17:22 PM >

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 194
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 11:21:37 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 1349
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 195
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 11:43:58 PM   
Stridor


Posts: 5078
Joined: 9/8/2007
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 196
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 4/30/2008 11:54:05 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 1349
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by thewood1 -- 5/1/2008 12:01:17 AM >

(in reply to Stridor)
Post #: 197
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 5/1/2008 12:17:45 AM   
Mobius


Posts: 9151
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: online
quote:

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.

(in reply to PDiFolco)
Post #: 198
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 5/1/2008 12:24:04 AM   
PDiFolco

 

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



(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 199
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 5/1/2008 12:24:33 AM   
Capitaine

 

Posts: 599
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 200
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 5/1/2008 12:53:36 AM   
Mobius


Posts: 9151
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: online
The way to handle the fire at effective range is to fire at what you feel is effective range.  Put the units on Defend>Hold>All and wait until the target is within killing range.  Now we do know too much because we can compare the gun statistics to the target's protection but most experienced crews knew the general range at which their guns could deal with the enemy.  Also, the gun can be put on Defend>Hold>Good Shot or something like that.  This is when there is better than a 50% chance to hit.

But let's say the order Fire at effective penetration range were an order.  And suppose it were given to a hiding platoon of UK tanks 3 of which are 75mm Shermans and one is a 17pdr firefly.  Now if just one tank fires at a goup of Panthers or Tigers which one do you think every German gun will be trained on the next phase?

When we played miniatures my British friend would fire his 75mm Shermans at the same time as he opened up his 17pdr Firefly claiming fire at all firing Shermans must be distributed randomly.



< Message edited by Mobius -- 5/1/2008 1:23:09 AM >

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 201
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 5/1/2008 2:49:18 AM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 1349
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
But not all firing units are the same.  In an infantry battle effective range of an MG is not the same as a rifle as a mortar, etc.  That is why company commanders in defense set up range markers.  So all fire can be effective.   Unless suppression is the main point.   But even ad hoc, it was pretty common practice to tell soldiers to hold fire until a certain landmark.  Whether based on weapons, unit experience, coordination of fire it was common.  It is still common today and part of doctrine in defense.  It is still common practice for commanders to set fields of fire as well.

I would suggest playing a little more CMBB to see how easy and yet effective this little tool can be.  It is something that would eliminate a lot of micromanagement in defense.  And guess what, it is optional to use it.  If someone can to it better without it.  CMBB basically defaults to fire at effective range unless told to hold.  Any good player can beat someone that refused use CAs.  One of the main ways to beat them is make them use ammo.  The other way is to make them expose their position too early or too late in the 60 second turn.

One thing I keep see you talk about is player intervention.  It is still 40 seconds of AI running everything, whether its from human commands or not.  That is on 33% shorter than CMBB.  A lot happens in 40 seconds.  I was asking Erik about an ambush situation today where the P4 passed out LOS in about 15 - 20 seconds.  But I had to hold the SU76 because he kept shooting at an infantry target 500 meters away.  With a CA for armor only, it would have gotten a good flank shot in before getting brewed.

As to the firefly/sherman example, what they typically did is leave the firefly back in overwatch and the Shermans moved up to engage.  Also, a good platoon commander wouldn't just say fire at effective range whan firing on multiple panzers with different units, unless he was trying to attrit them at long range.  They would do what I just described or would wait until all guns were able to effectively engage.

btw, that reminds of a question I hadn't asked but meant to.  Are there any mixed platoons in PCK.  I have tried looking through the data and didn't see any.

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 202
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 5/1/2008 3:04:16 AM   
Rick

 

Posts: 12286
Joined: 4/20/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

btw, that reminds of a question I hadn't asked but meant to.  Are there any mixed platoons in PCK.  I have tried looking through the data and didn't see any.



I think I read a msg from Erik somewhere that they would like to incorporate mixed platoons in a future release. I t might have been in the command control thread

An by the way, I agree with your comments about covered arc and covered armor arc. These are RL orders a platoon commander would give fire zones, and would give ranges if he thought it necessary (although getting troops to follow them is another bag of worms). I think they would be a good addtion to a future release, or at least something to consider.

Rick

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 203
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 5/1/2008 3:10:20 AM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 1349
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 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.


Can we start with the fact I think the platoon command structure is good. If you agree I believe that then we can move on to other parts of the conversation.

(in reply to Capitaine)
Post #: 204
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 5/1/2008 3:28:29 AM   
Michael Dorosh


Posts: 378
Joined: 3/2/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius
But let's say the order Fire at effective penetration range were an order. And suppose it were given to a hiding platoon of UK tanks 3 of which are 75mm Shermans and one is a 17pdr firefly. Now if just one tank fires at a goup of Panthers or Tigers which one do you think every German gun will be trained on the next phase?



You mean like in real life? Guess why they repainted all those 17-pounder gun barrels with funny colours on the underside, or camouflaged them with chicken wire? :)

Well, once they were spotted, anyway. I take your point but surely there are ways around that in the code, no?


_____________________________

The Tactical Wargamer


(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 205
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 5/1/2008 4:09:48 AM   
Mobius


Posts: 9151
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
I would suggest playing a little more CMBB to see how easy and yet effective this little tool can be.  It is something that would eliminate a lot of micromanagement in defense.  And guess what, it is optional to use it.  If someone can to it better without it.  CMBB basically defaults to fire at effective range unless told to hold.  Any good player can beat someone that refused use CAs.  One of the main ways to beat them is make them use ammo.  The other way is to make them expose their position too early or too late in the 60 second turn.

I'm sorry but those arc thingys just ruined it for me. I couldn't take the game seriously after finding those.

To handle the "fire when near the tree" type order in PCK there should be a Defend spot point. Like an artillery spot. This is placed within a certain range of the unit and anything within 100m or so of the spot or coming between the spot and the unit is taken under fire.
If you remember Squad Leader this would be bore sighted. (If one is going to have an arc it would have to be limited to the actual physical limits of the gun sight.)
And maybe someway to ignore certain type targets.


< Message edited by Mobius -- 5/1/2008 4:16:00 AM >

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 206
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 5/1/2008 4:39:56 AM   
76mm


Posts: 2093
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
quote:

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?


I find your reaction to covered arcs (quoted, and in the post above) really puzzling. Real soldiers use these things all the time, indeed, devising a "range card" is one of the highest priority tasks for a platoon leader when setting up a defense. As stated repeatedly, the "arc" part is just a game mechanic. What really happens is this:
1) Platoon leaders assign sectors of fire based on land marks ("you cover from the left edge of that treeline to that building with the white roof").
2) Certain weapons, such as MGs, use stakes implanted immediately in front of their positions to delineate their firing sectors.

Range is dealt with in a similar manner ("don't fire until the enemy crosses that road"), based on the platoon leader's estimate of the range based on the ground and a map analysis.

At least from my experience in a modern US tank company, this is basic stuff; I suspect it was the same in WWII (or WWI, for that matter). The arcs are just an elegant means of accomplishing the same end. Why do you think it's unrealistic?


< Message edited by 76mm -- 5/1/2008 4:44:14 AM >

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 207
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 5/1/2008 4:41:46 AM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 1349
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
I didn't see the defense spot thing.  How do I access it.

I don't see how that is different than the arc, just that the arc is more flexible.  Unlike SL leads people to believe, boresighting, especially for machine guns, is for an area not a spot.  That area varies depending LOS, range, flank coverage, etc.  The spot thing seems rather arbritary.

The arc in a defensive coverage would be the equivalent of being assigned a field of fire with range markers.  But it also represents less formal mechanisms like "you cover between those two buildings if anything comes in there".

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 208
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 5/1/2008 4:50:34 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32912
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
Lots to catch up on here - one quick comment...

Since Kharkov doesn't have "shared spotting" covered arcs are not that hard to setup within the existing rules, especially for non-infantry. Units that are not infantry only spot in their front 180 degree arc when stationary, front 90 when moving. So first, point them where you want them to see - they will only fire at what they can see themselves. Second, issue a Defend -> Hold Fire -> Good Shot order. This means they will only open fire if they have a target close enough that they're pretty darn sure they can hit it. This will usually limit them to only near threats or those that are exposed and offering particularly good opportunity shots.

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 #: 209
RE: PzcK vs CMBB - 5/1/2008 5:11:34 AM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 1349
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
So there is no chance armor will see a unit coming up behind it?

edited for mistake

< Message edited by thewood1 -- 5/1/2008 5:12:08 AM >

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Panzer Command: Kharkov >> RE: PzcK vs CMBB Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   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

0.133