Panzergrenadier Tactics (training film in German but with later English subtitles)

[John Kettler]

This is a much better version of something that gets posted now and again on various CM Forums. Not only is the tactical material great, but we get to see the earliest version of the Jagdpanzer IV, the 251/16 Flammpanzer and the 251/17 with 2 cm auto cannon. Have put this post here since the subject matter is geared toward the Eastern Front.

http://tinyurl.com/j8br3nw

Regards,

John Kettler

[Aragorn2002]

Superb stuff, John, thanks!

[kevinkin]

Agree. Clean shaven and oh so formal those grenadiers. The action maps kind of remind me of the CMBO beta in '99.

[Aragorn2002]

It's sheer propaganda of course, the reality looked very different in the summer of 1944. But interesting.

[MOS:96B2P]

Thanks for posting @John Kettler interesting video.  

[John Kettler]

Aragorn2002, kevinkin and MOS:96B2P,

You are all most welcome. I consider it a real find. My puckish side would note that recon would be well advised to determine whether or not the attacked force has ATRs. Perhaps the CO could just send over a polite note?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Bulletpoint]

I think one of the most interesting things about this video is that it shows the Germans as they saw themselves. Or as they thought they should appear. The contrast to archetypical Hollywood Germans is enormous.

[Combatintman]

Good find, it would be the basis (with a lot of artistic licence) of a pretty good little Axis vs Allied AI scenario for any budding scenario designer out there.

[Cpl Steiner]

Interesting film and highlights to me the problems of command and communication. At several times runners and flares are used to communicate orders. I remember in the original CMx1 games there was a delay after issuing an order before it was carried out, and the delay was greater if the unit was out of range of their commander. I don't know why that got removed in CMx2. It would be nice to see the use of runners and flares in CMx2 for communication of orders to units that don't have a radio. Marked approach routes in pre-game setup to help units follow orders more quickly would be great too. If anything, the film shows just how much CMx2 doesn't simulate.

[mjkerner]

10 hours ago, Cpl Steiner said:

I remember in the original CMx1 games there was a delay after issuing an order before it was carried out, and the delay was greater if the unit was out of range of their commander. I don't know why that got removed in CMx2. It would be nice to see the use of runners and flares in CMx2 for communication of orders to units that don't have a radio. Marked approach routes in pre-game setup to help units follow orders more quickly would be great too. If anything, the film shows just how much CMx2 doesn't simulate.

I never played CMx1, but I agree with Steiner.  This would be a really great addition to the game, IMHO.

[Baneman]

10 hours ago, Cpl Steiner said:

... I remember in the original CMx1 games there was a delay after issuing an order before it was carried out, and the delay was greater if the unit was out of range of their commander. I don't know why that got removed in CMx2. ...

The real trouble with this was that it didn't scale well - ie. it made sense when issuing some orders that there would be a delay concomitant with the complexity of the mission, but trying to get a conscript truck driver to simply drive down a bendy road could take well over a turn of delay because each waypoint added more time to the delay ( and each increment of delay for a conscript was a lot ! ). In reality that should have been the much faster action.

 

[Cpl Steiner]

The scaling issue of the command delay in CMx1 is really just a design problem. If BFC wanted to tackle it, they could program in a "Use Roads" toggle button. A single move order placed further up the road would then become a series of Tac-AI generated waypoints along the road, taking into account bends etc. but the command delay would be based on a single order.

I appreciate we can't have everything, and BFC have to prioritise, but better road movement would be a godsend. I really hate having to plot all waypoints along a road as its unnecessarily time consuming. A "Follow" command for vehicles would also be a great addition. You could then plot a move order further up a road for the lead vehicle in a convoy, and "Follow" orders for each one behind. A few clicks could conceivably result in a huge column of vehicles moving off along a bendy road compared to dozens of clicks currently. It would also solve the problem of faster vehicles in the middle of a convoy catching up with the vehicles in front and trying to overtake them.

Edited January 5, 2017 by Cpl Steiner

[A Canadian Cat]

What @Baneman said about command delay is only one part of the problem. The real kicker comes when you fully appreciate that your roll as player is *all* the commanders. Command delays are fine when you are thinking like the company commander and you are issuing orders to coordinate your platoons to assault a position. It is perfect then. It completely and utterly falls apart when you think about your roll as the squad Sargent who realizes his men just stepped into an ambush. There is no way in hell that a command delay of 30s or even 10s makes any sense when you just need to get into that ditch near by to get some cover. Or when you are playing the roll of the tank commander and you need to get your driver to back up over the crest of the hill right, this, second. There is no planning that needs to be done. There is no back and forth discussion between various peers with different information. There is an order and the frantic execution of it. Period.

@Bil Hardenberger created a very cool self imposed initiative system that covers what is good about the command delay but in my opinion the command delay from CM1x is utterly broken and I am glad to see its back.

[Michael Emrys]

1 hour ago, IanL said:

...in my opinion the command delay from CM1x is utterly broken and I am glad to see its back.

Yes. It was a basically good idea that could not be made to work realistically in all conditions. If some clever programmer can come up with an algorithm that will fit all situations (or at least nearly all) then the subject might be usefully revisited.

Michael

[Cpl Steiner]

Well, I'm a programmer (maybe even clever, but I would not claim so much). To get around the "we don't need orders from HQ as it's bloody obvious what we should be doing" problem, you could use a manual or an automatic approach. The manual approach would be to give you some resource like "Initiative" that accumulates slowly and can be spent on a particular unit to reduce its command delay. The automatic approach is more difficult - the AI would have to be able to understand when a particular order would likely be given by an NCO in the unit rather than higher command. I would favour the manual approach for simplicity.

[Michael Emrys]

9 hours ago, Cpl Steiner said:

...the AI would have to be able to understand when a particular order would likely be given by an NCO in the unit rather than higher command.

This is the approach I would favor on theoretical grounds, but I will freely confess that I haven't at the present time even the ghost of an idea how one would go about programming it, which I would expect to be a rather huge project involving a mountain of testing, debugging, and checking for myriad conditions.

Michael

[A Canadian Cat]

Yep those are possible ways to go. My personal preference would put other work above this but that's just one opinion.

[Michael Emrys]

1 hour ago, IanL said:

My personal preference would put other work above this but that's just one opinion.

Unless some genius comes up with an elegant way of designing this, your opinion will likely also be BFC policy.

Michael

[A Canadian Cat]

Perhaps, you never really know what Steve or Charles has cooking. One of them could wake up in the middle of the night with a brilliant idea. However I do recall Steve talking about trying various design alternatives for this in the past that he was not happy about.

[Rinaldi]

18 hours ago, IanL said:

What [Baneman] said about command delay is only one part of the problem. The real kicker comes when you fully appreciate that your roll as player is *all* the commanders. Command delays are fine when you are thinking like the company commander and you are issuing orders to coordinate your platoons to assault a position. It is perfect then. It completely and utterly falls apart when you think about your roll as the squad Sargent who realizes his men just stepped into an ambush. There is no way in hell that a command delay of 30s or even 10s makes any sense when you just need to get into that ditch near by to get some cover. Or when you are playing the roll of the tank commander and you need to get your driver to back up over the crest of the hill right, this, second. There is no planning that needs to be done. There is no back and forth discussion between various peers with different information. There is an order and the frantic execution of it. Period.

[Bil]  created a very cool self imposed initiative system that covers what is good about the command delay but in my opinion the command delay from CM1x is utterly broken and I am glad to see its back.

I suppose this also comes down to optics; what do you view CM as - a virtual tabletop, a tactical simulator or a command simulator a la Scourge of War? I'm practically in full agreement with you here.

With regards to the sentences I emphasized, that's why I'm ambivalent to the idea of re-introducing a command delay. I've always viewed CM as a tactical simulator, and the turn-based nature of it allows the player to slow down and play every leader from the obergefreiter up to the oberst-leutnant. The soft factors help control your ability to react insantly somewhat; if you take the fireteam leader and make him act unilaterally you have to think of it as him seizing the initiative; and if he's a poor leader it won't have the same effects as a strong leader exercising his own judgment.

Edited January 6, 2017 by Rinaldi
Quote edits

[Duckman]

On 2017-01-05 at 10:39 PM, IanL said:

 

@Bil Hardenberger created a very cool self imposed initiative system that covers what is good about the command delay but in my opinion the command delay from CM1x is utterly broken and I am glad to see its back.

Sound interesting. Care to describe it?

[A Canadian Cat]

LOL yeah that would be helpful wouldn't it. Here it is:

 

[Duckman]

Thanks!

[MikeyD]

At 21:57 what's that wooden stock SMG he's picking up? Is that a Beretta M38 or is that something else?

[Ivan Zaitzev]

On 11/1/2017 at 5:55 PM, MikeyD said:

At 21:57 what's that wooden stock SMG he's picking up? Is that a Beretta M38 or is that something else?

Looks like a Gewehr 43.