RE: Status? (Full Version)

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



Message

diablo1 -> RE: Status? (2/17/2011 5:12:31 PM)

The east sucks, I'd rather see all the good/great stuff go into the West front and/or African front games if there are any in the future.



Topo -> RE: Status? (2/17/2011 5:14:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

Yes, the East is where it is at for me as well.


+3



diablo1 -> RE: Status? (2/17/2011 7:22:04 PM)

quote:

The east sucks, I'd rather see all the good/great stuff go into the West front and/or African front games if there are any in the future.


+4 [:D]



freeboy -> RE: Status? (2/17/2011 10:11:29 PM)

ok.. are we releasingthis this quarter?



TheGreatRadish -> RE: Status? (2/18/2011 9:14:25 AM)

quote:

Is this game going to make it out during the first quarter of the year?


quote:

I sure hope so. We're trying as hard as we can to wrap it up.

Good Hunting.

MR



From the previous page of this thread.



freeboy -> RE: Status? (2/18/2011 5:28:58 PM)

right, well we are fast approachingthe END of the first quarter.. so I actual will be surprised and pleasedifthis comes out in the second quarter



jamespcrowley -> RE: Status? (2/18/2011 5:42:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

right, well we are fast approachingthe END of the first quarter.. so I actual will be surprised and pleasedifthis comes out in the second quarter


To be fair, we are about midway in Q1, so another six weeks or so to go.



TheGreatRadish -> RE: Status? (2/18/2011 7:32:49 PM)

MR also said back on Feb 10th that he expected something to happen within 2 weeks.  He didn't necessarily mean the full release, of course, but that two week period for further news/events isn't up yet.




freeboy -> RE: Status? (2/18/2011 11:37:07 PM)

right, I think I was clear, but if not I apologise as I am now and was then refereing to full release.. this game could be awesome!



BorisBadanov -> RE: Status? (2/19/2011 3:16:11 AM)

"refering to full release" [:D]



Mad Russian -> RE: Status? (2/19/2011 3:42:25 PM)

When  you refer to full release you should direct those questions to Erik. He's the one that decides release dates.

Good Hunting.

MR



KEYSTONE07950 -> RE: Status? (2/19/2011 7:57:07 PM)

Although I own both PC - Winterstorm and PC - Kharkov I will purchase Ostfront upon release to support the series.

I consider it a modest investment in a hobby that has provided many hours of enjoyment.



gijas17 -> RE: Status? (2/20/2011 5:14:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: diablo1

The east sucks, I'd rather see all the good/great stuff go into the West front and/or African front games if there are any in the future.


North Africa wouldn't be a bad theatre playing as Rommel lol. There is a lot of potential for any theatre in PC. I personally would like to see the Pacific as its been one theatre of the second WW highly unrepresented in war games. What I would like to see is a major undertaking by developers but if done right would make this the best game ever. That is a grand strategy game mixed with tactical battles like those of PC. Where the player could utilize a operational map of lets say Normandy to make you happy and use counters or unit icons to move (like chess) around on for objectives like take Caen in three days or liberate Paris in two months. Then when armies meet go to a tactical map to play out the battle or auto resolve similar to the Total War series. There have been a few games that have mirrored this but none of them have been successful imho. I believe Battlefront was designing something similar using their CMx1 engine for Barbarossa to Berlin of the series but canceled the project. The Civ series for example could do this as well and might make it in the future. It's really hard to get all immersed in a grand strategy game like Hearts of Iron when you don't play out the tactical battles like those in the PC series. One day... hopefully, someone will finally get enough time, money, man power and put this idea in motion.



Mad Russian -> RE: Status? (2/20/2011 7:43:31 AM)

Good luck with that. For 40 years now I've seen it listed as one of the major projects that wargamers would love to see. 40 years later no company has made it work even though several have tried.

Good Hunting.

MR



diablo1 -> RE: Status? (2/21/2011 3:45:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Good luck with that. For 40 years now I've seen it listed as one of the major projects that wargamers would love to see. 40 years later no company has made it work even though several have tried.

Good Hunting.

MR



Actually someone did do it Mad Russian. It's called D-Day:The Beginning of the End http://www.mobygames.com/game/d-day-the-beginning-of-the-end. It is strategic on the surface and then when two groups meet it goes down into a "Tactical" game. It's long as hell to play and gives new meaning to "The Longest Day". [:)]

Here is strategic map and game: http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/d-day-the-beginning-of-the-end/screenshots/gameShotId,335317/

and there here is tactical battlefield and look at some units: http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/d-day-the-beginning-of-the-end/screenshots/gameShotId,335318/



Erik Rutins -> RE: Status? (2/21/2011 4:26:24 AM)

For something that's available now and does that, have a look at Close Combat: The Longest Day.

http://www.matrixgames.com/products/368/details/Close.Combat:.The.Longest.Day

Regards,

- Erik



Erik Rutins -> RE: Status? (2/21/2011 4:28:03 AM)

To respond in terms of Panzer Command, I'd love to see an operational layer in the future, but that's a very distant wish list item at this point. We do have linked campaigns that track your units across battles, but no operational map above the battles.

Regards,

- Erik



CheerfullyInsane -> RE: Status? (2/21/2011 11:18:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: diablo1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Good luck with that. For 40 years now I've seen it listed as one of the major projects that wargamers would love to see. 40 years later no company has made it work even though several have tried.

Good Hunting.

MR



Actually someone did do it Mad Russian. It's called D-Day:The Beginning of the End http://www.mobygames.com/game/d-day-the-beginning-of-the-end. It is strategic on the surface and then when two groups meet it goes down into a "Tactical" game. It's long as hell to play and gives new meaning to "The Longest Day". [:)]

Here is strategic map and game: http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/d-day-the-beginning-of-the-end/screenshots/gameShotId,335317/

and there here is tactical battlefield and look at some units: http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/d-day-the-beginning-of-the-end/screenshots/gameShotId,335318/


I think MR meant someone who had done it well.
I tried that particular game back in my youth, and to say it is horrible is something of an understatement.
The company (whose name eludes me at present) also did a strategic/tactical game on the american civil war...
That one was equally horrible *LOL*

The Close Combat series do a pretty good job of it, my only gripe is the real-time aspect of it.

And here's a final thought....
*If* they ever do a strategic overlay on Panzer Commander, I guarantee you there'll be some nutcase joining WitE and PC, fighting the entire russian campaign 1:1....... [X(]
We may have to build them a special padded room for them to frolic in. [:D]

Lars



Mad Russian -> RE: Status? (2/21/2011 2:45:03 PM)

Yes, that's right. I know of a lot of attempts at making an operational/tactical layered game. Where basically the operational game is a random battle generator for the tactical level game. We did that with Russian Campaign and PanzerBlitz about 4 years...er, decades ago ourselves.  [X(]

Good Hunting.

MR



spellir74 -> RE: Status? (2/21/2011 3:20:38 PM)

Operational layer is nice.

But another blindspot in the game world is btn vs tbn (or more properly battle group vs battle group*) where-in most combat actually takes place.

That BG v BG combat is actually the story of combat logistics(munitions, communication [which in WWII was very complex], local commands(operational comm, combat comm and more[eg air link?]), recovery and med, entrenchment reinforcements, reserves rostering (conveyor belt like, even) and local strategy (get into enemy local depth to upset his logistics apple cart).

BG's depth is 300-900+ meters maybe, in back of the 200 meters of active firing-line combat (the business end of the BG).

Something like that. Like I said it is blind spot. But it is actually the story of how combat went down. Still is. Combat is not "the lost squad" of "survivalists"(worm eaters without support depth). Some elite arms are specifically trained for that sure but the rest get real antsy when separated from that 300-900+ of depth.

[A battlegroup is an ad hoc compiling of assets, arranged per mission specific goal, taken from the larger pool of assets inside the Div; usually only two per div, broken down into task forces and task groups. There were larger Battle Groups too.]



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Status? (2/21/2011 4:12:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: diablo1

quote:

The east sucks, I'd rather see all the good/great stuff go into the West front and/or African front games if there are any in the future.


+4 [:D]


+5[:D]



Ratzki -> RE: Status? (2/21/2011 9:57:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gijas

quote:

ORIGINAL: diablo1

The east sucks, I'd rather see all the good/great stuff go into the West front and/or African front games if there are any in the future.


... That is a grand strategy game mixed with tactical battles like those of PC. Where the player could utilize a operational map of lets say Normandy to make you happy and use counters or unit icons to move (like chess) around on for objectives like take Caen in three days...


I have a question for the powers that be...
I am aware that there seems to be another CMMC game going to be started at some later date. They have a website up, saw the link on the Battlefront site. They are going to try to do the Konrad offensive. Interesting as I have been working on something similar and was going to see if PC would be able to support a "PCMC" sort of idea.
Here is the question,... after the updates will PC Ost be able to be used to playout battles where the Referee would be able to look over a gamefile between two players and determine losses for each side and then manually set up following battles where losses can be represented?



Mad Russian -> RE: Status? (2/21/2011 10:48:08 PM)

At the moment you could get close. Since PCO doesn't support multi-player campaigns yet an operational layer could be done by scenario off of an operational map. I've done some work in that regard myself. The thing is that you don't want to get too big and for my personally it got too realistic.

When you play a wargame the emphasis is usually on the game part of the hobby. In real life you don't attack if the other guy has a chance. Which means the battles being generated that the players will accept are walkovers. You don't want to fight something you may lose a lot of your precious pixel gruppen over. Gee, much like in real life.

So, if the battle generator is any good few of the battles generated by an operational level would be worth playing at the tactical level.

Good Hunting.

MR



rickier65 -> RE: Status? (2/21/2011 11:41:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ratzki
.....I have been working on something similar and was going to see if PC would be able to support a "PCMC" sort of idea.
Here is the question,... after the updates will PC Ost be able to be used to playout battles where the Referee would be able to look over a gamefile between two players and determine losses for each side and then manually set up following battles where losses can be represented?


I'm not sure if this answers your question, but if the referee had the players game password, he could view the players end game report which shows losses (and actually shows unit recoveries as well).

In the scenario editor, the scen designer can have platoons that are not at full strength.

See screen below.

The Random campaign system itself will also track losses of a core force. Or you can create a "defined campaign", and the system will track losses. But again, not sure exactly what mechanics you want to use.

Thanks
rick



[image]local://upfiles/91/7D8AFC9C4E594A2B80558AE09F1F2072.jpg[/image]



Ratzki -> RE: Status? (2/21/2011 11:58:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

At the moment you could get close. Since PCO doesn't support multi-player campaigns yet an operational layer could be done by scenario off of an operational map. I've done some work in that regard myself. The thing is that you don't want to get too big and for my personally it got too realistic.

When you play a wargame the emphasis is usually on the game part of the hobby. In real life you don't attack if the other guy has a chance. Which means the battles being generated that the players will accept are walkovers. You don't want to fight something you may lose a lot of your precious pixel gruppen over. Gee, much like in real life.

So, if the battle generator is any good few of the battles generated by an operational level would be worth playing at the tactical level.

Good Hunting.

MR


I somewhat agree with the too big statement, but I am holding my breath that the PC editor and the step loss system will be easier to deal with then is the style used by CM. In this way, the game or campaign could be a fair bit larger and easier to handle in PC then it was in CM. What I think that you have to get away from is using PC to play out every combat occurance. I have been working on a system that I have "borrowed" from a cardboard wargame that i own for handling any combat that would not be pleasant to play out in PC. This game is already at battalion/company level so not much tinkering was done to get good results.
I am hoping that the map making program with PC is something, along with the scenario editor, that will produce decent scenarios quickly. This has always been another CM downer, as making a battle map was time consuming, and you either had to premake many 10's of maps or use the QB mapmaker to get enough maps to be able to play. The CM map maker AI was poor at best, and toiling over making maps that never seemed to truly represent the battlefield without gobs of research did not turn my crank either. PC's map maker looks to be something that may be way easier, and if easier, less work.
I am looking forward to getting this on my HD sooon.



Ratzki -> RE: Status? (2/22/2011 1:20:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rick

I'm not sure if this answers your question, but if the referee had the players game password, he could view the players end game report which shows losses (and actually shows unit recoveries as well).

In the scenario editor, the scen designer can have platoons that are not at full strength.

See screen below.

The Random campaign system itself will also track losses of a core force. Or you can create a "defined campaign", and the system will track losses. But again, not sure exactly what mechanics you want to use.

Thanks
rick
[image]local://upfiles/91/7D8AFC9C4E594A2B80558AE09F1F2072.jpg[/image]


Thanks guys for the info. So I see that for the armor, 3 out of a squad of 6 can be represented. I am imagining that the same will be said for infantry? Not only will we be able to set the units strengths of say 2 squads out of a platoon of 4 (for example), but we will be able to set the step losses of the squads as well?



rickier65 -> RE: Status? (2/22/2011 2:36:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ratzki
Thanks guys for the info. So I see that for the armor, 3 out of a squad of 6 can be represented. I am imagining that the same will be said for infantry? Not only will we be able to set the units strengths of say 2 squads out of a platoon of 4 (for example), but we will be able to set the step losses of the squads as well?


No, I don't think you can reflect step losses.

Thanks
rick



gijas17 -> RE: Status? (2/22/2011 2:46:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spellir74

Some elite arms are specifically trained for that sure but the rest get real antsy when separated from that 300-900+ of depth.

[A battlegroup is an ad hoc compiling of assets, arranged per mission specific goal, taken from the larger pool of assets inside the Div; usually only two per div, broken down into task forces and task groups. There were larger Battle Groups too.]



Thats how the Germans used Blitzkrieg especially with tanks. It worked in France surprisingly or they just got lucky but Russia was to large for the tactic to be effective and left their flanks highly exposed. Also it took days for the infantry and supply convoys to catch up to the tanks which delayed operations even further like the attack on Moscow. They didn't have highway systems in Russia like those in Germany.



Mad Russian -> RE: Status? (2/23/2011 4:46:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gijas

They didn't have highway systems in Russia like those in Germany.


That's one of the main reasons I think they lost the war in the east. Had their been a road net in Russia like there was in Western Europe the Russians would have in all likelihood lost the war.

Good Hunting.

MR



Richie61 -> RE: Status? (2/23/2011 6:11:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

quote:

ORIGINAL: gijas

They didn't have highway systems in Russia like those in Germany.


That's one of the main reasons I think they lost the war in the east. Had their been a road net in Russia like there was in Western Europe the Russians would have in all likelihood lost the war.

Good Hunting.

MR


Yes, you are correct. I read a book about 15 years ago about a truck driver in the German army and he said they took 4 to 5 times longer to get supplies to the front. Lack of roads and lots of mud and snow added to it.



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.40625