Matrix Games

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
So there is no chance armor will see a unit coming up behind it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

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?

quote:

This range and arc thing is really wierd. I can't imagine anything in real life such precision would be a model of.

quote:

I had a completely new insight into what being a general is all about…..Mostly confusion and blamelaying

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius
Yes the sectors are assigned each tank. But it takes time to co-ordinate the plan. Often it is written down first and distributed to the platoons and then to the TCs. I just don't see it being something that could be done on the fly with any precision. And then without landmarks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bardolph
In the military you generally issue commands one level down, and are usually aware of the location of elements two levels down. So a company commander gives orders to his platoon leaders and has a rough idea of where their squads are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bardolph
My current favorite game system is the reprint of Von Reisswitz's 1824 Kriegsspiel. You need a lot of players, and a lot of umpires to make it work but there is nothing more educational than trying to run a battle based on garbled reports and glimpses of the enemy through the smoke and haze and woods and hills. You think not knowing where the enemy is is fog of war, try not knowing where most of your own troops actually are half of the time. A quote from a chap that played in a game recently

quote:

I had a completely new insight into what being a general is all about…..Mostly confusion and blamelaying

If this could be replicated in a computer game I would need nothing more gaming wise. But again, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rick
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.

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.

quote:

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).

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
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.

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
PCK tries to remove the squad command with out providing the perfect TacAI or the other tools needed at that level.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
I thought regroup only applied to platoons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine
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.

quote:

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:

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.)

quote:

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:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
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.

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
How many times to I have to say the PCK's platoon orders system is good.  Look at my recommendations.  No where do I say get rid of it.  In fact, my recommendations are somewhat a cross between the two.  And I do believe that having the fluidity to cross asign is better than almost no cross asign at all.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
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.

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
I would keep the command system. I would get rid of the reaction phase but put significant delays on reposnding to orders not set by the platoon commander's main stance order. IOW, have 40 second turns. Basically today, you have 40 second turns. But in one turn you are limited in the oderers you give. From what I can tell you are putting a 40 sec. delay on all orders every other turn that don't align with the platoon's orders. That part seems very artificial.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Delays and elimination of orders could all be effected by experience, morale, fatigue, training, distance to command unit, and even overall communications capabilities. .

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
The big thing is not to stop players from doing stuff, but put as real as possible penalties on doing stuff
should be heavily penalized for acting independent,
should have limited penalties because they are trained
Another thing is penalize platoons for changing stance
but penalties are there to balance it.
but penalize him enough that if he goes outside the command structure, he has to have a very good reason.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
These are exactly the kinds of things I am talking about.  There were numerous instances where one unit of a platoon had LOS and others didn't and it took quite a bit of moving, clicking, and canceling of orders to get all units engaged, without bothering the unit that already had LOS.  Think about the ambush example.  Trying to get one SU76 into position while making sure I didn't screw up the others in the platoon is an unrealistic and unnecessray burden on the player.
The tools I am talking about are exactly the things you are mentioning.

quote:

Also, in the real world, of course orders don't change as much as this.  But we are the brains of most of the units on the field.  If I can tell a squad to go to that stand of trees and stay until you see anemy armor than come back, I wouldn't need to send that many orders.  But to do this in either CMBB or PCK requires detailed orders and time to intervene to make sure they are followed.

quote:

In what way would you beef it up?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
I don't understand the precise comments.  They aren't precise.  There is probability around all of it.  You can even put probability into delays.  I find penalties a better tool than just plain not letting someone do something.  They then have to make a decision.  This is what commanders do.
Mobius,
So first parts are too precise, then parts are too subjective.  Which do you prefer?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
I don't understand the precise comments.  They aren't precise.  There is probability around all of it.  You can even put probability into delays.  I find penalties a better tool than just plain not letting someone do something.  They then have to make a decision.  This is what commanders do.
Mobius,
So first parts are too precise, then parts are too subjective.  Which do you prefer?

If you are going to have some penalties why do things by half measures? Make them ignore the order all together (the runner got lost or shot) or get the order wrong (Assault the house on the right? My right or his?). Playing with a group of people you see this all the time.