Matrix Games Forums

More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the FamilyTablet Version of Qvadriga gets new patchNew Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge UpdateCommand gets a huge update!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: The Infantry

 
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.] >> [World War II] >> Panzer Command: Ostfront >> RE: The Infantry Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Infantry - 8/30/2012 4:20:11 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1118
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline
CMx2 is the way things are going? I haven't bought it yet. The Demos just disappoint.

As far as a game that uses the Relative Spotting and Realistic limitations of WWII Command and Control; I give it to Panzer Command.

(in reply to Andy Brown)
Post #: 61
RE: The Infantry - 8/30/2012 4:44:28 AM   
Mobius


Posts: 8990
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown

Mobius,

Not sure what you're quoting there (more of Gen McCaffrey?) but I think you've made my point. If PC: O is not to be just another squad-based game, and if the 3D terrain model is to be retained, then all the intra-platoon stuff you allude to needs to be automated.
It comes from an attempt to design a game AI.
link

(in reply to Andy Brown)
Post #: 62
RE: The Infantry - 8/30/2012 4:59:44 AM   
Ratzki

 

Posts: 397
Joined: 8/18/2008
From: Chilliwack, British Columbia
Status: offline
I agree with Yoozer in that CMx2 is not where I want to spend my wargaming dollars, it's play does nothing for me. PCO is at it's core a tank vs tank game.just look at the name of the game. But as exciting as this is, the eastern front is filled with the plain grunts that did the bulk of the fighting. I would like to see an update of the infantry combat that showcases infantry combat that is on par with the armor combat that is already well developed in the game. What makes PC so good with tank action is the controls/orders that one can give. Overwatch, and other commands make the handling of large numbers of units relatively painless. One can get down and move his tanks separately but usually it is just fine tuning. But this same system should transfer across to the infantry as well. I do not know if more detail will better the game, numbers of grenades ect., but the transfer of information to the player from the squads needs improvement, are they taking losses/how many, ammo status, ect.need to be shown without removing the player from the immersion in the game. A better orders list for the infantry that actually was designed to show off infantry tactics would be time best spent.

(in reply to Yoozername)
Post #: 63
RE: The Infantry - 9/2/2012 2:34:23 AM   
Yoozername

 

Posts: 1118
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline
I am not that sure that having such detailed information is worth programming or even realistic. The game models battles. Unlike peacetime army exercises and modern communications, the WWII battlefield is a confusing and dangerous place and many events are transpiring too quickly. I seriously doubt a company commander could get a nose count like a game like CM allows. That is another failure of the whole 1:1 design slope. A game at this level needs to just keep this level of precision under the hood.

On the other hand, even WWII tank formations could have some idea using radios and visuals. So, again, I don't think that demands on infantry modeling are justified by comparing them to armor. They are two different animals IMO.

(in reply to Ratzki)
Post #: 64
RE: The Infantry - 9/19/2012 9:15:33 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7850
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
If the game had as much fidelity with the Inf as they have with the Tanks I'd have bought it.

I'd love to see far less abstraction. I'd love to see bounding overwatch (not where you have to micro manage it but where you give an order then the TAC AI keeps part of the platoon back providing covering fire and another section\squad moving forward, going to ground if need be etc etc).

I'd take a look at Combat Missionx2, see what they have done right and what could be better. For starters CMx2 really needs a formation command. God if you could make the Inf as good as they are in CMx2 but also be able to give them formation commands that would be awesome. Infact PC would become my wargame of choice.

I also want Inf where the Tac AI can deal with Urban fighting. Again thats an area no game yet has managed to do well. CM is OK but there could be alot of improvements.

Again I think you should look at CMx2, See the issues people have and what it struggles to do. Then you take whats is works but also fix\imporve add to things that CMx2 can't do or doesn't do well.

1:1 scale and a damn fine TAC AI is what is needed. A TAC AI where if you give an order to a platoon to defend a certain area the TAC AI then moves of the soldiers and positions them all in viable areas without the need of any micromanaging.

Same with attack\assault give the order to a platoon the platoon then does fire and move all by itself..or of choose two platoons then they auto work in conjunction...

Less micromanaging the better, I want to see the tac ai use real world tactics (though that depends on how well trained the Inf are for instance depends on how well they carry out the order)

Just because it's platoon scale doesn't mean we have to have abstraction. We have the power of a PC now so lets use it. Monitor ammo\jams\breakdowns\individual morale state\wounds etc etc. Abstraction is need in board game, to keep the paper work and rules down. However we have PC's now. So much can be done I think it should be done. Detail and more fidelity doesn't have to mean micromanaging. It will give us a more involved wargame experience. As I said the TAC AI is the key.

Also I'm not sure why people don't want the Inf to be worked and improved on. It doesn't mean the tanks will suffer. It will improve game and also attract more customers. It doesn't have to be like CM. Infact if people say what they aren't keen on or doesn't work well due to 1:1 scale well say what it is you think doesn't work well and how it could be changed\improved still keeping 1:1 scale. As I said CMx2 needs formation commands desperately, so here is something PCO could do...

< Message edited by wodin -- 9/19/2012 9:33:14 PM >


_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to spellir74)
Post #: 65
RE: The Infantry - 9/20/2012 12:12:52 AM   
Rick

 

Posts: 12047
Joined: 4/20/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

If the game had as much fidelity with the Inf as they have with the Tanks I'd have bought it.

I'd love to see far less abstraction. I'd love to see bounding overwatch (not where you have to micro manage it but where you give an order then the TAC AI keeps part of the platoon back providing covering fire and another section\squad moving forward, going to ground if need be etc etc).



We do have Bounding overwatch order as one of the formation move orders. It's only available to the German units, unless you elect to platy with SoW off, in which case it becomes available for both sides. It has some limitations in the Tac AI determines which squad(s) rush initially and which stay back.


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin
..... be able to give them formation commands that would be awesome. Infact PC would become my wargame of choice.



PCO has formation commands for Line, Column, and Wedge formation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

....A TAC AI where if you give an order to a platoon to defend a certain area the TAC AI then moves of the soldiers and positions them all in viable areas without the need of any micromanaging.

Same with attack\assault give the order to a platoon the platoon then does fire and move all by itself..or of choose two platoons then they auto work in conjunction...



In PCO the Advance order provides a more cautious (and slower) movement with fire opportunities during the same phase as movement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Also I'm not sure why people don't want the Inf to be worked and improved on. It doesn't mean the tanks will suffer. It will improve game and also attract more customers. It doesn't have to be like CM. Infact if people say what they aren't keen on or doesn't work well due to 1:1 scale well say what it is you think doesn't work well and how it could be changed\improved still keeping 1:1 scale. As I said CMx2 needs formation commands desperately, so here is something PCO could do...



I think most folks would be happy to see some improvements in the way infantry is handled in the game. There are still questions about what level of detail to track certain things, but I'm sure we'll arrive at some solution that is reasonable.

We also model breakdowns for tanks, as well as bogging (temporary mobility hindrance). For infantry we added fatigue and stamina and I'm sure there are other things we can do to improve the infantry experience.

Thanks!
Rick

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 66
RE: The Infantry - 9/20/2012 12:52:28 AM   
wodin


Posts: 7850
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Well if those things are in place and you can get them all working well at 1:1 scale with correct animations etc aswell as track each individual ammo and morale state as well as gun jams etc you've cracked it.

You've got to get the animations right though at 1:1 scale. CMx2 has bunching issues due to the hot spot mechanic. Here again is where PCO could overtake CMx2 and model things to a higher fidelity than CMx2.

As long as you get the soldiers to react properly and look the part plus be tracked at an individual level including ammo and moral I think you've cracked it. The acid test is how well they cope or the AI copes with urban fighting.

As for you saying the TAC AI has some limitations as it chooses which squad stays back and which moves forward I see no problem at all with that. As long as the Tac AI is smart enough to move the right soldiers at the right time than thats what I'm looking for. I want the TAC AI to do that sort of micro management.

Someone mentions 1:1 scale is too detailed for this scale and that detail really should go on under the hood. Well if it's going on under the hood anyway then why not have the graphics to show it? I disagree totally that we should see three men for a platoon\squad, years ago fair enough when PC's weren't powerful enough but these days there is no need for it at all. Honestly if you want the next game to be a success you have to go 1:1 scale. It's one reason why CMx2 forum is still very active and the games are overall well thought of. The only real difference between Pco and cmX2 IS 1:1 Scale, and CMx2 has it's issues which PC could come along and do it perfectly by seeing what issues people have currently with CMx2 and I'm talking about issues raised by those who really enjoy the game.

I truly believe PCO (well the next game)if they go 1:1scale and get it working well especially with all those orders for Inf the game already has your on for a classic status wargame and would bring in alot of CMx2 players.

< Message edited by wodin -- 9/20/2012 1:04:37 AM >


_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Rick)
Post #: 67
RE: The Infantry - 9/20/2012 1:32:17 AM   
Mobius


Posts: 8990
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin
I'd love to see far less abstraction.

1:1 scale and a damn fine TAC AI is what is needed. A TAC AI where if you give an order to a platoon to defend a certain area the TAC AI then moves of the soldiers and positions them all in viable areas without the need of any micromanaging.

Same with attack\assault give the order to a platoon the platoon then does fire and move all by itself..or of choose two platoons then they auto work in conjunction...

Less micromanaging the better, I want to see the tac ai use real world tactics (though that depends on how well trained the Inf are for instance depends on how well they carry out the order)
To go with the order of the day... Aaarrrggghhhhh !
So you want gobs of detail fire and movement, hiding, tactics etc. going on that you don't have to order, just watch.
So after all that hard work of programming the human behaviour and minute combat action you at the end of the turn get the same results that you would of if the whole thing was just abstracted.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 68
RE: The Infantry - 9/20/2012 4:31:49 AM   
wodin


Posts: 7850
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Not really as I imagine you'd get more realistic results. Also your forgetting immersion.

Also I never said you don't order hide\ambush etc etc...all those orders should be there. But in attack I expect them to carry out real world tactics when I give the order to assault, giving covering fire and moving or going to ground when needed etc etc.

I want the Tac AI to look after itself to a point and not have to hold it's hand constantly.

The more order options the better, but when I give that order I expect the TAC AI to carry out the order in a realistic fashion. I want to give an assault order and then see the platoon carry out that order in a tactical way rather than just running and shooting towards the obj.

You've taken what I asked for and decided to take it to the extreme.

Personally I'd rather have the detail modeled than abstracted.

Anyway I'm backing out of this discussion now. I was just giving you thoughts from someone who'd buy into the series if the game went 1:1 and did things better than CMx2.

If you want more of the series you need new players.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 69
RE: The Infantry - 9/20/2012 12:31:30 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 1349
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
I would be against a true 1:1 model. CM2 has some significant issues with how the 1:1 models are used around bunching and HE effect. CM2 dialed down the HE effect because of the inherent bunching forced on squads/teams due the 8m squares all units have to move in.

But the main reason is look how many things BFC says they can't do because of modeling issues. How much faster can you implement a piat firing in CM1 than in CM2. That is one of the issues dogging CM2 and its inability to quickly deliver content. I think it is also driving what theaters they are building out. I suspect that is why they did Italy instead of moving more quickly to the east front. A lot fewer infantry models.

When I want top play 1:1, I play Arma2 or Steel Beasts. I like PCO because it is easy to mod and does not get hung up on modeling every bullet. It is a wargame, not a pseudo-simulation.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 70
RE: The Infantry - 9/20/2012 3:01:53 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 8990
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
To behave realistically at 1:1 scale the individuals would have to be given eyes as well as their own weapon. You wouldn't want them running into or through enemy troops. So a LOS to each other troop in sight has to be calculated many times a turn to avoid collistions and allow shooting at targets. Right now the thing that slows the game processing the most is the relative sighting calculations. Doing it for each individual infantry trooper would increase the slowness by an order of magnitude. Maybe with multi-cored pcs this could be handled.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 71
RE: The Infantry - 9/20/2012 11:09:25 PM   
Ratzki

 

Posts: 397
Joined: 8/18/2008
From: Chilliwack, British Columbia
Status: offline
NO to 1:1 for infantry. The game does not need it. I would like to see a more orders/command type gameplay, where you tell a platoon to move to a location and the AI positions squads based on formation, the platoon commanders sphere of influence/communication, ect. Plus, the immersion factor would improve if what information is available is shown on screen instead of hidden behind mouse clicks and sub-menus. So a changing 1:1 on the screen to show the squad's manpower as it takes losses, some weapon specific graphics to accuratly display the squad's weapons, ect. I like the abstract, but the infantry model has to improve to get the information to the player with the least hassle.

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 72
RE: The Infantry - 9/21/2012 2:35:31 PM   
junk2drive


Posts: 12893
Joined: 6/27/2002
From: Arizona West Coast
Status: offline
I imagine a 1:1 infantry game would be like playing a board game where you have a stack of infantry chits on a hex.

(in reply to Ratzki)
Post #: 73
RE: The Infantry - 9/23/2012 8:37:55 PM   
Ratzki

 

Posts: 397
Joined: 8/18/2008
From: Chilliwack, British Columbia
Status: offline
A good analogy J2, the designers should decide if we are gonna play with the pieces, or are we going to command the pieces.

(in reply to junk2drive)
Post #: 74
RE: The Infantry - 9/24/2012 8:32:55 PM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 12376
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
That decision was made long ago. We came to command units.

This entire discussion is about what level of detail gamers want to see incorporated into the system. So, discussion is very much wanted and noted. There may well not be one 'right' answer though.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to Ratzki)
Post #: 75
RE: The Infantry - 9/25/2012 4:11:01 AM   
Ratzki

 

Posts: 397
Joined: 8/18/2008
From: Chilliwack, British Columbia
Status: offline
If it is a commander's game, then at what level does the player command down to? Platoon?... if so then the level of detail should stop on what a platoon leader would be responsible for. Would he say at the start of a mission "ok, everyone grab 6 grenades and 50 rounds of rifle ammunition" or would he just tell the platoon to "keep it light" or what have you. Could we not equip our platoons at the start of the battle by clicking on light, medium, heavy loadouts with reguards to ammunition and squad specialty weapons like panzerfausts and explosive charges. This way you would know before the battle that platoon A is the heavy platoon. The tradeoff would be slower movement, increased time/decreased ability to return fire if suprised for example.
I just think that the platoon HQ squad should be able to say "attack the tank" and the best squad in his platoon equiped for the job should be chosen to carry out the order, as long as he has one squad with a weapon that can do the job is all that matters. Maybe a list of weapons that the entire platoon has with them and the total ammunition/grenade load would be fine, it would save a player from clicking on each of the squads to try to find the one with a grenade remaining. The list would come up when clicking on the platoon HQ. Kind of a best of both worlds, abstract for the individual squads but a detailed listing of each weapon type, number and ammunition ready by the whole platoon.

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 76
RE: The Infantry - 10/5/2012 6:22:37 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7850
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Ok fair enough..no 1:1 visual representation..however I'd want the game to actually monitor individuals and as Ratzki says show it in an Info box..Aslong as the game models the Inf in depth I can go without visual representation..

I'm really not keen though on the old CM way of showing the Inf..three men or whatever..I'd rather have the whole game as counters (go for a Squad Battles kind of look but in 3D). Have topdown pics of AFV's etc(but animate the turret). Have a portrait of the unit commander on the Inf counters aswell as how many men left in the platoon. Personally I'd prefer that over great looking 3D tanks along side abstract three men platoons...

< Message edited by wodin -- 10/5/2012 6:24:15 PM >


_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Ratzki)
Post #: 77
RE: The Infantry - 10/6/2012 3:09:37 AM   
Ratzki

 

Posts: 397
Joined: 8/18/2008
From: Chilliwack, British Columbia
Status: offline
I'd be ok with the 1:1 visual representation but do not think that we need each soldier to have an AI routine running like in CMx2.
I am with you on the 3 man infantry visual for squads. I would not mind a top down only view. I ended up playing CM mostly in that view anyhow. But if PC goes more into a command type game where the AI positions your squads around a point that the player selects, then the top down could be done away with as I mostly used it to move units around and needed the top down to keep track of LOS.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 78
RE: The Infantry - 10/8/2012 9:37:53 PM   
wodin


Posts: 7850
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Counter with a footprint, similar to Command Ops but at platoon level. But make sure all soldiers are modeled and pinpointed on the map under the hood, but let us see the info on the soldier through info box and what he is doing "Running".."Taking Cover"..."Hiding" and also what his moral is plus weapon and ammo and fatigue level.

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame


(in reply to Ratzki)
Post #: 79
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Panzer Command: Ostfront >> RE: The Infantry Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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

0.100