Search found 18 matches

Green = good chance to put your rounds on target
Yellow = mediocre chance to put rounds on target
Red = minimal chance to put rounds on target
Black = you are wasting time even aiming Wink

try and do some experiments with your troops concerning the reticules.

A lot of factors go into the % here.

1. Moral (break your troops and they won't want to fight)
2. Suppression level (place AT Inf in harms way and see the green goto red)
3. Weapon capabilities (take AT inf and light Inf and see the difference)
4. Range (obvious here, but you can try it)

One that affects me mostly is #2, probably because I suck. Wink

-CN

I think this sort of action definitely falls under the spirit of fair use. I can not see any motivations due to money nor personal gain; I do see advancements in the community being the only motivation here.

In analyzing the 4 factors of fair use

1. This is not for commerical use. (has A LOT of weight in fair use)
2. The nature of the copyrighted work is that it's copyrighted and it's very old. (important I think that it's old. I would be screaming to take it down if it wasn't published yet [ex. Falcon 4.0 source codes] or recently published [as in those on P2P, in general].)
3. The amount 'taken'. The whole piece of software is being served.
4. Effects of potential market. (has A LOT of weight in fair use)

In closing, this is not for commerical use, it is copyrighted material and very old, the amount of material in question is complete and the effects of the market can only help the CC series. Given these points I would say this is fair use.

Best regards,

CN

PS. Fair use and copyright laws are in place to protect and defend both sides of the coin. In the past you, as a consumer, had the right to copy and print complete novels and pass out to whomever. Publishers jumped on board with this idea because a property of that idea was, 'who's going to allocate the resources to copy that novel?' In the 70's this was redefined and extened to include phonograph records, and the tapes were looked at as phonographs. Now that every consumer has the ability to copy and pass out thousands of complete novels, records, tapes and cd's, etc.etc.etc. Publishers are reviewing their positions on fair use, not to solidify the spirit of fair use and copyright, but only in their personal interests. Which 90% of the time has NOTHING to do with art or science.

The Iowa class battleships had 16"/50 caliber Mark 8 guns for amphibious assault support. These guns could throw a 2700 lb (1200kg) projectile in excess of 20 miles. I believe it was 23-26 miles.

But as true for all artillery pieces at max range, it was difficult at best to ensure that the enemy would be hittable at max range. So, in my oppinion I believe the effective max range of these guns were more like 20 miles or less.

-CN

GMG2 1988-1992 USN

Reinforce is only for the American player right?

-CN

The thing about constructing army organizations is to remember that there wasn't any hard fast rules about it, so to speak.

Sure one division ToE looked very much like another of the same type, on paper, but different types looked totally different even from a manpower point of view.

Generic ToE

Army: 3 Divisions
Division: 3 to 4 Brigades
Brigade: 3 to 4 Battalions
Battalion: 3 to 5 companies
Company: 3 to 5 platoons
Platoon: 3 to 5 squads
Squad: 4 - 10 men

The variances depends on a few things such as HQ at that level, heavy weapons organizations, etc. I.e. everyone realizes the US Army uses numbers in 3's, 3 squads per platoon, 3 battalions per brigade, etc. This is true for the most part, unit you consider HQ units which then makes the base number 4. And also, a company doesn't have to go under a battalion; Army infantry divisions circa 1967 had HQ companies directly under the divisional level.

For creating battle groups for tabletop games, this list really is only useful in two conditions:

1. To gain an idea of the cost to create an order of battle.
2. For the newbies where it centers more around the gameplay than recreating historical units and battles.

Beyond this you probably need to research the particular unit you want to model. It all depends on the requirements of the organization to really say what goes where.

-CN

I saw a reference in one of the forums about someone making CC2 a downloadable link here on CCS.

I am assuming that it means CC2 is now being looked on by the publishers as a non-money generating resource, and thus being distributed as freeware.

I am wondering, does this mean the source code is available somehow too?

Man I would love to see the source. Having that available will really kick start the RTT genre.

-CN

You might have already done so, but go to HP and download all the patches for the laptop. I have found that laptops seem to have a load of patches. But maybe that is due to my choice of manufacturer, Toshiba.

It's worth a shot there.

-CN

In reference to the other thread about recruitment and retention let me outline my requests here.

1. Articles for the newbie in reference to getting started effectively and tactics that work.
2. Articles for the intermediate. I guess you could group articles here referencing online play, reviewing existing or new mods - not necessarily creating mods - as this I feel is more for the hard core players. Also, it'd be a great grouping for articles on the newer versions of CC: CCM, RTB, RP, etc. This area is very important because I think that the lack of support/interest for newer versions may be void in the market and thus having detrimental effects on the creators/publishers. No sense publishing a game if there isnt enough interest for it.
3. Articles for the advanced player / supporter. Getting start guides for modders - unit management from a creation stand point, etc.

Please notice that I am pointing towards articles here. While forums are a great place to discuss all of these areas, and forums are basically self supporting - articles gives users a single point of access to information. This is required so people are playing Hatfield and McCoy when it comes to previously discussed topics. You know the scenario, 'please do a search of forum X as it's been previously discussed numerous time.'

Stickies help, but they have their own shortcomings.

Best regards,

CN

I have a few games loaded on my system now, but game time varies depending on my fancy.

Games I have played over the past 6 months:

1. Close Combat 5 - just put on again a few weeks ago.
2. Hearts of Iron 2 - The best WWII grand strategy around.
3. Combat Mission Demos - haven't forked out the cash for the full versions yet.
4. Superpower II - excellent 3 tier grand strategy (not WWII) wish HoI2 could use for reference in many areas here.

***EDIT***
Had to include a game I bought and installed last night

Airborne Assault: Highway to the Reich

This game should prove very playable. So far it's living up to my expectations. It's an operational level strategy game base on.... yup Operations Market and Garden.

I've only played Tutorial #1 (of 2), but I've learned a lot about the game. The AI is superb! For both your troops and the opposition. For you, the AI will move and switch formations based upon the orders given and the parameters supplied.

The game DIRECTLY models several aspects of warfare that I haven't seen in other games. Such as order delays aren't just a blanket time to commence an order, it takes into many different accounts to model it.

Also, the way the game handles attacks was simply amazing! I sent a Bn to attack a fair sized town. 3 Inf and 1 mortar company. I defined the front, how I wanted the attack to progress, etc. As the assault progressed it was amazing to watch the companies switch from a movement column formation to a 3 abrest assault formation with the mortar company staying to the rear and providing support.

I wish you could battlefield command like you can in CC, but this is a start for next generation strategy / tactic games.

-CN

PS. I loaded a huge WWII online multiplayer game, I forget the name but it really shows serious promise for the future of strategy games. (PC only fits the bare minimums for game play, so I don't play much of all.)

Thanks for replying to the post I made. I hope that noone takes my post as a flame or finger pointing.

While staying current with mods and such is a good plan, I think that caters to mostly the advanced members of the 'demographic' so to speak. With several years of CC pseudo-experience I don't consider myself advanced, more of a newbie because my experience with CC is less than a hobby.

I do really enjoy CC very much and I am now taking more of a hobby approach to it. But in trying to research the basics, I find newbie tutorials on gameplay few and far between.

Let me give an example of how 'newbie' I am, and keep in mind that I am an IT professional for more than 10 years now.

With CC5, I obtained a copy of it secondhand without the manual, so what really? I had CC2 and CC3 already. How much different can it be? I have had CC5 for several years now and didn't know that in a GC you could move your battlegroups each morning. How lame is that? Sad

But thanks to CCS, i was able to download the manual and determine that. I am now armed with knowledge. Let me tell you, the game is totally different now. (I don't know if there is a tutorial about the BG screen, I stear away from the lesser tutorials in the game considering they are repeats of previous tutorials and they take a long time to complete; besides severly lacking in the thought process of why you do something.)

My next research project is finding tactic tutorials. Now here, they seems to be a black hole. Part of the reason I see is 'they' stopped putting out strategy guides with CC3? Very disconcerting. Anyway, I had hoped to find masses of tutorials on the web.

I found 'references' in forums to compiled tactics, but following links produce page not found errors because the author has let things go. Not putting them down, life has responsibilities, maintaining tutorials on a game should place last on someones list.

I did find an 80 page article from some Army officer describing Company, Platoon and Squad tactics and makes reference to CCM, but this is kind of hard to read due to the military origin. A good article nonetheless.

Thanks for the participation in this thread, and I hope that the information gleaned from it is put to good use. I'd like to offer any help I may, but please realize that I am a newbie myself and I have a family.

Best regards,

CN

Thanks!!!!

I think that's it. I had to switch BG around as Germany, specifically the unit on Uncle Red was very bad and didn't have much of a BG to speak of.

-CN

I know this thread was basically finished a year ago. But I'd like to get it going again.

The reason being is to address the problems (depending on POV) that plague gaming sites.

First off, look at it like any other organization competing for business. Even a community center has the same problems getting people to visit and stay.

In order for CCS or CSO to have a nice member list that returns and participates the game has to be replayable. Address this objectively - without a personal position - CC really doesn't have the replayability that other games do. Even the replayability that it does have has been dried up with the lack of new versions. yeah there are mods, but general users don't like mods. Or rather feel they are too complex. Look at general install packages today, a user doesn't have to do anything really and many times the install gets hosed somehow.

Once a game has this, member sites and forums are busy busy busy. To keep that going is a basic business topic, getting and keeping customers. My personal feelings are to provide more than the other site. Everyone has forums, everyone has a mailing list (for who knows what use) and everyone wants to be the most technically advanced in their field of interest.

Where each fall short is providing the basics. You first need to get your customers and to maintain a steady stream of newbies. This is accomplished by catering to the newbie. Basic articles concerning newbie things come to mind, bugs and patches, tactics, unit explainations, how the game is organized and played (not a manual retype but filling in the details )

Once you are populating your user lists, you can go from there. Maybe extend your articles in intermediate series. Such as a "how to" on a great implementation of a strategic level properly implemented defensive battleplan (the complete defensive battle plan that is, not just a 'defense')

Really beyond that is icing on the cake, implement a ladder system and maintaining / upgrading it. Clan organization manaugement tons of things, but all of which are useless if you don't get new users and if you don't keep the ones you have.

If you are able to do that, you'll have a system in which feeds and provides for itself. I.e. the user base provides incentive to the producers to put out bigger and better products. (only reason DOOM, QUAKE, ETC has the user base it does is because of the user base it has had)

-CN

When you play CC5 with Moral on or time limit and the game ends due to one or the other without complete 'ownership' of all VL's (say missing one from the last corner of the map); why is it the next round and 'Germans attack', you start from a very small area clear across the map?

Wouldn't you control the VL's on the field? What is this modelling when your position is then diminished and then must regain all this lost ground?

-CN

I am playing an un-patched, un-modded vanillia install of CC5. I don't play often; probably less than 10 times in the past several years.

Current Settings are all defaulted and even (I.e. difficulty for both sides are right in the middle) I have a time limit of 15 minutes, neither side can 'see' the other always.

I seem to notice that the AI playing the US seems to be able to see and do things that shouldnt be. I.e. seeing clear across the map and sending mortar rounds on my troops.

It's really wierd, I can sneak troops, even scouts, along hedgerows and still get sighted and thus pinned. And it's not like the AI is taking a chance, it's obvious my troops have been sighted.

Also, it's not like the AI could possibly get troops far enough into the map and camping out in a spot, especially when the AI doesn't take VL along the way, as the AI does religiously.

Thanks,

CN

Seems that there is no updates to be had; rather no updates that contain any real information.

I have tried to weed through the various forums at various sites.

Could someone please pass out some meat and potato information?

1. Where are screenshots? When were they produced?

2. When is RF slated for release? How firm is this? Historically the release date has continually rolled later and later.

3. Who's hands is it in now?

Hate to sound like a prude but I think that these are valid questions a consumer could raise and expect to be answered. With the lack of interest from the 'teams' really leads one to assume that interest in producing RF is waining and in danger of failure.

Everyone one, 'can assure' others all they want, but lack of interest will show through a lack of content.

Thanks,

-CN


	Login or Register	Home · Downloads · Forums · Combat Camera · Help