Will it be better than Combat Mission (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Panzer Command: Ostfront



Message

tiger111 -> Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/12/2010 12:37:20 AM)

I imagine that the graphics will be better than Comat Missiom Afika Korps. But in gameplay and realism how much of an impovement am I likely to get?

I like the idea of having a core unit eg Company of tanks and going though the war with them-souns like Steel Panthers to me??? What`s the largest unit mix you can have for a custom campaign?

Looking forward to this game a lot-when might we see a release -in vague terms-Xmas or 1st.Q 2011 or......



Mad Russian -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/12/2010 1:05:08 AM)

Or...the release time has always been 4Q 2010.

Only you will be able to determine how realistic you think PCO will be.

Personally, I would say in terms of armor battles I like it better, in terms of infantry combat it should be better with PC4. The emphasis so far for PC has been tank combat. In PC4 that will change to a more balanced approach. There are those that like the infantry combat model now so it's not MIA. IMO, it could just use the same kind of improvements that the armor combat model just got.

Better is a personal point of view. PCO is going to be different than CM. Whether you find it better or not will be determined by your own gaming style.

Good Hunting.

MR



rickier65 -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/12/2010 7:18:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Augustas

...I like the idea of having a core unit eg Company of tanks and going though the war with them-souns like Steel Panthers to me??? What`s the largest unit mix you can have for a custom campaign?



I think the Random Campaigns I've loooked at have a mixed force of around maybe a company and a half of combined arms. You can create your own Random campaign using the Random Campaign editor, but you will need to be familiar with the scenario editors and campaign editors that are included with PCO. if you design your own Random Campaign, you could increase that. I'm not sure what the upper limit for your core force would be in that case.

Just as an experiment I attempted to create a division sized core force and I can tell you that that did not work.

Thanks
rick



Mad Russian -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/12/2010 12:56:06 PM)

I've put a regiment together but whatever size core unit you use, company/bn/rgt all the units must be in every battle to be tracked in the campaign.

Good Hunting.

MR



Mobius -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/12/2010 2:14:48 PM)

PCO has a more detailed and more flexible armor model. The front of a AFV can have 10 different armor factors while in CM you may have one factor for turret and one for upper hull and lower hull. In PCO things like StuGs have several armor panels of differing factors on their superstructure.



Mad Russian -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/12/2010 5:19:31 PM)

All the issues with say, a "Super StuG", shouldn't happen in PCO. And if it does the data can be changed to reflect a more realistic model. The data in PCO isn't hard coded into the game as in CM. It's read by the game from files that can be changed. Very little in PCO is set in stone.

Good Hunting.

MR



RocketMan -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/12/2010 8:33:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

All the issues with say, a "Super StuG", shouldn't happen in PCO. And if it does the data can be changed to reflect a more realistic model. The data in PCO isn't hard coded into the game as in CM. It's read by the game from files that can be changed. Very little in PCO is set in stone.

Good Hunting.

MR



What about the PZ IV? I once did an analysis of how badly CM modeled the PZ IV due to the limited number of armor areas that could be modeled in the engine vs. how many different angles and thicknesses the projected frontal area of the PZ IV actually had. See this post over at Gamesquad for the details of my analysis.



Mobius -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/12/2010 10:14:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RocketMan
What about the PZ IV? I once did an analysis of how badly CM modeled the PZ IV due to the limited number of armor areas that could be modeled in the engine vs. how many different angles and thicknesses the projected frontal area of the PZ IV actually had. See this post over at Gamesquad for the details of my analysis.

You missed the cupola on your analysis there. When you include it the turret tips to 3 locations in 10. Also the transmission covering plate is included in your assessment as part of the upper hull. It is a separate location in PCO. But it is so highly sloped it factors almost the same as the vertical front hull. PCO gives most of the turret 5cm of armor except the mantlet near the gun which has a slight angle giving it about 55mm of armor which PCO rounds to 6cm.

In the end PCO values are almost the same as CM values for this vehicle.



RocketMan -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/12/2010 10:52:25 PM)

I didn't miss the copula, I ignored it because I figured a hit there would be unlikely to actually take out the vehicle. It might cause crew causalities, but it probably wouldn't effect the actual operation of the vehicle.

The biggest problem I saw with the CM modeling of the PZ IV was the large area modeled for the turret as 50 mm @ 10° when in actuality, that area was probably less than half of the project area as can be seen inside the green area in the turret from the picture. I don't know how thick the highly angled areas armor was in the turret (the areas between the orange and green on the turret), but that area is a non-insignificant part of the total area.

Also, the hull area that is highly sloped (where the hatches are) was ignored in CM. I don't know the armor thickness in this area, but as part of the projected area of the hull, this section looks to be about 20-25% of that area.

Edit: I should also point out that modeling the copula as having 50mm of armor @ 10° is not very accurate either.



Mad Russian -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/12/2010 10:52:56 PM)

One of the quotes from that thread got my attention right away...

quote:


It should be noted that CM waters down the German tank modeling, considerably IMO in both CMBB and CMAK.


From my experience that's not uniformly true.

I see things like the Super StuG and the Tiger I. Where the armour is almost invulnerable to Soviet AT rounds. And where the PzIV turrets are uniformly weak. Where the German AT rounds are too powerful.

Neither game has the ability to have the inferior shoot for the weak spots...YET.

I want a PzIII gunner at 300 meters to fire at the tracks of a  T-34. Or the turret ring. Or the, well you get the picture. I want to target the weak areas of the tank if I can't penetrate his armour. Actual gunners did it as their only way to survive the engagement.

It would be good to have in PC as well. Once PCO is out and you guys get to play with it for awhile then we can do the next wishlist. There should be some interesting things on that wishlist.

Good Hunting.

MR



RocketMan -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/12/2010 10:59:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

One of the quotes from that thread got my attention right away...

quote:


It should be noted that CM waters down the German tank modeling, considerably IMO in both CMBB and CMAK.


From my experience that's not uniformly true.



Not something I said. I was only looking at the PZ IV. I really have no idea if other tanks were modeled better or worse in CM.



Mad Russian -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/12/2010 11:05:56 PM)

I know It just caught my eye.

TBH, I have been so busy learning the new map maker and editor system plus how the game plays to balance my scenarios I've not done any testing. The system.

Your testing was done PzIV vs the Sherman which we don't have just yet. So, it's hard to do a direct comparison between the two games when we are missing one of the pieces.

I'm all for making a 2km test map though and that's probably one of the first things I'll do when we get the update released.

Good Hunting.

MR



Mad Russian -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/12/2010 11:07:41 PM)

Mobius is gunner/penetration guru....he'll be the one with the answers.  [&o]

It will be the rest of us that do tests to see if his answers bear out.  [8D]

Good Hunting.

MR



RocketMan -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/12/2010 11:09:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Mobius is gunner/penetration guru....he'll be the one with the answers.  [&o]


I'm sure he knows a lot more than I do about the whole subject then!



Mad Russian -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/12/2010 11:45:02 PM)

I don't know, sometimes things need to be abstracted so the game "feels right" too. First and foremost it's a game.

Good Hunting.

MR



Mobius -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/13/2010 12:19:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RocketMan
I didn't miss the copula, I ignored it because I figured a hit there would be unlikely to actually take out the vehicle. It might cause crew causalities, but it probably wouldn't effect the actual operation of the vehicle.
If the shell had any kind of burster the fragments might take out the tank or the turret crew. If the crew is KO'd it is a destroyed but not burning tank in PCO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RocketMan
The biggest problem I saw with the CM modeling of the PZ IV was the large area modeled for the turret as 50 mm @ 10° when in actuality, that area was probably less than half of the project area as can be seen inside the green area in the turret from the picture. I don't know how thick the highly angled areas armor was in the turret (the areas between the orange and green on the turret), but that area is a non-insignificant part of the total area.
The small welded bits are 50mm too. That they are not exactly at 90° perpendicular is offset when you consider that all the welds and small parts are weak points to an armor scheme. Tank gunners would target welds, edges, holes, etc. as they believed the armor there would be 15% weaker then the middle of a plate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RocketMan
Also, the hull area that is highly sloped (where the hatches are) was ignored in CM. I don't know the armor thickness in this area, but as part of the projected area of the hull, this section looks to be about 20-25% of that area.
That is the highly sloped transmission access plate that I mentioned as giving the equivalent protection as the vertical front hull plate.



freeboy -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/16/2010 6:04:15 PM)

are we still locked into a 1 km square?
This one issue killed my previous PC experience!



Mobius -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/16/2010 6:11:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy
are we still locked into a 1 km square?
This one issue killed my previous PC experience!

The majority of the maps are 1 km. But there are a number that vary .5km, 1.5km or 2km.



spellir74 -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/17/2010 1:16:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

are we still locked into a 1 km square?
This one issue killed my previous PC experience!



2Km!



Mad Russian -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/17/2010 1:34:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

are we still locked into a 1 km square?
This one issue killed my previous PC experience!


I'm about to light up your PC world then. At least two of the release scenarios will be on 2k maps. Others will be all different sizes from 500 meters and my personal favorite 1.5k maps onto the big boy 2k maps.

Good Hunting.

MR



freeboy -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/17/2010 7:23:13 AM)

That is great news as the fire teams we love to model, tigers pluging holes created by red armor, where often longer than 1k in the initial contacts... GREAT news!!!



Mad Russian -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/18/2010 4:38:42 AM)

What makes you think there are Tigers in PCO? I don't remember seeing Tigers anywhere around......



[image]local://upfiles/28652/231A69EA98534D3384CF02E8C8A021CB.jpg[/image]




It's funny I have ONE scenario with them and it's on a 1k map.


Good Hunting.

MR



JamesM -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/18/2010 8:12:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

What makes you think there are Tigers in PCO? I don't remember seeing Tigers anywhere around......



What about king Tigers?



spellir74 -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/18/2010 8:27:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jamesm


What about king Tigers?



http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2602281



==
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2565342&mpage=1&key=king%2Ctigers



WilliePete -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/18/2010 4:18:33 PM)

Of course this will be better than Combat Mission! Wow - awsome looking Tigers!!! Something about that tank... I like it better than the King Tiger!

When making our own scenerios, is there some kind of function that will allow us to give different cammo patterns to the vehicles?

By the way, what is the unit limit, infantry or vehicles, allowed by one side on a given map?



rickier65 -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/18/2010 4:32:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WilliePete

Of course this will be better than Combat Mission! Wow - awsome looking Tigers!!! Something about that tank... I like it better than the King Tiger!

When making our own scenerios, is there some kind of function that will allow us to give different cammo patterns to the vehicles?

By the way, what is the unit limit, infantry or vehicles, allowed by one side on a given map?


For this release at least, you won't be able to designate a different camo pattern for your units. Each unit can have two patterns, one for winter season and one of summer season. You can create mod and create your own patterns and use them instead of the stock, but they aren't changeable by the scenario designer.

For some "decal enabled" vehicles, you can add unique numerical decals to your units on a scenario basis. This hasn't been widely implemented but it available for some vehicles.

there is currently a 5000 point limit in the scenario editor. I made one test where I placed one of each type of Armored Unit available for each side in a scenario. I don't recal how many units this was but it was quite a few. But I suspect that my machine would have bogged down with so many units on the map, as the computer would need to do LOS calcs for each of those units, several times during a turn.

Thanks
rick



WilliePete -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/18/2010 5:15:21 PM)

thanks for the prompt reply, Rick! So, its a point limit and not a predefined number of vehicles or infantry squads? For example, if I wanted to have an infantry only force, then I suppose I would have 30+ units to move? Is it fair to say that most engagements are company vs company in size?



Mad Russian -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/18/2010 5:50:50 PM)

I'll go middle of the road here with you:

1943 German Veteran Infantry Platoon(3 squad) Cost - 18

1943 Soviet Veteran Infantry Platoon(3 squad) Cost - 12

If you were doing an infantry fight on a 2k map with as many pure infantry units as you could buy I think you would have way more than 30.

My math says you would end up theoretically being able to put 277 German infantry platoons and 416 Soviet infantry platoons. I've not pushed the limits of actually having them all on the map before but I've actually hit the point totals for a campaign I'm working on.

For some reason Panthers are expensive?? [:D]

A platoon of veteran Panthers (3 tank platoon) is 285 points. A 5 tank platoon is 475. As you can see, your force size will greatly depend on the toys you buy.

Keep in mind when those limits were set the game only covered 1942. With the later inventory of vehicles costs have gone up. It's one of the things to look at in the future, using a unit number limitation rather than a point total limitation.

Good Hunting.

MR



Mad Russian -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/18/2010 6:10:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WilliePete
Is it fair to say that most engagements are company vs company in size?


For the scenarios included in the PCO update and all associated scenarios I'm thinking more are on the battalion vs battalion level. Company vs company would have 9 squads vs 9 squads. Or 10 tanks vs 10 tanks.

As an example, one of my scenarios has a mix of 28 Panther and PzIVH tanks vs 40 T-34/85's plus accompanying infantry, HT's and Armored Cars.


Good Hunting.

MR



Mad Russian -> RE: Will it be better than Combat Mission (11/18/2010 6:25:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jamesm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

What makes you think there are Tigers in PCO? I don't remember seeing Tigers anywhere around......



What about king Tigers?



All I've ever seen are these driving around. Not all at the same time either.

Good Hunting.

MR

[image]local://upfiles/28652/A15E0ECB299440048E15FB9049D4E590.jpg[/image]



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.09375