CM v PC

[British Tommy]

Just started this thread for the players who wish to discuss the merits of each game.
Just keep it friendly POS and MR :)

[kineas]

Ubunntu has no issues running both CMBB or CMAK. I was using that before Vista. I will probably go back soon. Just do not seem to have the time.

How did you made CM work with Ubuntu?With Cedega?Wine?
Btw,just in case you didn't know,you can have both Ubuntu(or any other linux flavors) and Windows installed on the same PC.

The easy to use solution for everyone could be a bootable DVD image (ubuntu+CMBB binaries together). The pbem games could be saved onto an usb stick.

[Ratzki]

So far have just played around with PC a little bit to get the feel of things. I love the way that the armour can be moved without the need to plot and deal with the time delays like you do in CM. Being able to give a BOUND command in PC to your vehicles is an excellent feature.
I still feel that the infantry model is poor, maybe not what goes on behind the scene but you get no real idea on screen as to what is going on with your infantry during combat. At the moment I would have to say that CM still flows better during a game. That extra little reaction orders phase seems to braek up the game a little more then I would like. I will have to play it some more to see if this is actually the case or is it just that it is different from CM.

[cillmhor]

I have played Panzer Command Kharkov a bit, and there are things I like about it. As has been said, the infantry model is poor, or at least doesn't feel quite right. The lack of way points, at least as far as I can figure out, correct me if I am wrong, does not appeal to me. You are more of a commander, than a micro-manager in PC, which is fine, but I like to have the option to micro manage.

The simulation of Fog of War is better in PC in my opinion, the graphics are better, though the means to move the camera could be more intuitive, and a way to magnify the troop images would be good. I am also not too struck on the rather flat contours on many of the maps I have seen, realistic, but I would like to see some bigger hills? More than likely this is possible, I just haven't seen them. A map editor beta has been going for some time, but an easy to use one will be a must feature for the next release in the series.

Both games' AI have problems, and I have not played PC on PBEM yet, but I imagine this is where the game really comes into its own. The bound commands etc add another layer, but there are some things which just don't feel right. Russian AT rifles seem a lot more effective in PC than CM, don't know how realistic that is. Tanks in CM are not the borg spotters they are in CM, and especially when buttoned, so armour behaves a lot more realistically in this sense.

It appears infanty can be spotted in woods/light woods a lot more easily in PC, probably realistic again, but it means I have found it a lot more difficult to sneak troops into positions for attacks. In general, what I would say about PC is that it lacks the atmosphere of CM, and a little of the fun of CM. PC is probably more realistic in some senses, with tanks having trouble spotting units, infantry being easier to spot in woods etc, but CM makes you feel you are in a wargame where your decisions make the difference. In PC, at least personally, I get the feeling that I am just advancing my platoon of tanks to uncover the next set of AT guns/AT rifles, and my infantry to spot for them. As I say, a lot of people will have a different opinion on this game. I just feel I can engage more with CM than PC, plus CM has a lot more scenarios (although the PC community will address this in time I hope). In CM if there is a good map with a ditch or some other feature which is crucial to the scenario, you can pick up on it easily. Such features do not appear as easy to pick up visually in PC, although I'm sure a grid mod is out there to address this to some degree.

Just some thoughts. Both good games in their own way, but CM has more for me at the moment. Have tried PC a couple of times, but keep getting the urge to uninstall and leave it for a while. Not a criticism, I just can't get into it.

[Mad Russian]

Here's a post I put on the Matrix site concerning the differences between CMx1 and PC.

Since a good number of posts early on, in this thread, were by me with questions about the differences let me bring you up to date on what I see now, months later. My last post in this thread was back on March 25th.

Since that time I've gotten both PC:OWS and PC:K. I've played almost constantly in both the CM and PC game systems. I have A LOT of CM commitments that were in place before I decided to buy and support PC.

Here is what I see as a gamer that routinely travels back and forth between the two systems.

1) They are very different systems. Anyone that is looking for a CM clone in PC will be disappointed. This has been pointed out before. It's true. The combat and gaming models are very different.

CM is like a game of chess where you are in control of everything. There is no command structure. You are God and you determine every move for everybody. This is micromanagement down to the lowest degree.

PC is like a team sport. The system isn't so much about micromanaging all your forces. Although the system will allow it, in most cases, it's not necessary.

2) The game impulses are very different. CM is a single 1 minute turn. PC has two 40 second impulses. After playiing PC for a very short time I find that I rarely make a change in the reaction phase (the 2nd 40 second impulse) but play it more like a single 80 second turn.

3) The game interfaces different. At first it was hard to get PC to do what I wanted it to. But once I learned to set the zoom levels and give platoon orders it takes me no time at all to do a turn. In CM I rarely give platoon orders. When I do mass orders in CM I normally get an entire grouping not just a platoon. Both work well. I actually prefer the way PC works in the game at this point. When playing CM I miss more of the PC options.

4) The graphics are better in PC but both are adequate and not why I play the games.

5) The editor in CM beats the PC editor hands down. There is a Map Maker being worked on and it looks very capable even if it will be more complicated than the CM version.

6) Map size again is in CM's favor. 3+ km in some cases to only a 1km square area for PC.

7) Tank combat is good in both games.

8) Infantry, engineers and artillery has a better model in CM than PC.

9) Destructible buildings and terrain are available in CM but not PC.

10) Aircraft and AA seem about the same to me.

11) Support for the games is all in PC's favor. Mention that there are issues with the game and the Matrix group will try to do something about it. Now you may not get 100% of what you are looking to get changed but at least you will get discussion with it. Not so with CMx1.

12) Continuing games in the series. PC is growing and CMx1 is not.

13) Back coded games in the series. All PC games have the most current options, graphics and coding. Each CM game is independant and all have somewhat different coding.

14) CM has bases to help track your troops in heavy cover. PC has "floating coins". At first this was an issue for me. I couldn't track my guys well enough in trees. But with the F12 option and getting used to the icons I have no preference as to whether I see colored bases or icons.

Whether you will like one over the other is a question of your gaming styles and what you are looking for.

If you have in the past been an ASL, Close Combat or Combat Mission gamer then you should look at this game series and see if it appeals to you. You may well find it does.


Good Hunting.

MR