Search found 35 matches

Patch 1.04 has finally been released!

It fixes the withdrawl bug that was there from the start.
.

I played Close Combat often from Sept 1996 - Sept 2001. I retired from Close Combat on the evening before 9/11.

I played many on-line games and have great memories.

I did get the Longest Day and fiddled with it a bit.

My complaint was the same complaint from CC1 - CC5 and that is the poor LOS.

In CC1 if you try to cross open ground you get cut down. After CC1, cross open ground and there are numerous depressions where you can take cover.

These depressions are invisible to a defender allowing the attacker to cross open ground.

And the you get a long straight road. There is a monor change in the elevation and that change makes it impossible for an AT gun or an armoured vehicle to hit a target!

Also, recalling games from 199 - 2001, many times I set up a MG team lookijng down a road and again duue to the elevation change and enemy squad can cross a road with no losses.

CC1 with the graphics of the latest games would be a great wargame.

.
.

Its a terrific little game!
.

This is a very basic classic style hex based wargame.

DETAILS

The game is very simple. It is a joy to play a simple game!

A very cheap wargame.

Small file so that the download is very quick.

Turn based hex based wargame

Opponents: AI, PBEM, Hotseat

The AI is very good because the game is simple.

Requires Low system specs: I run the game on my netbook.

There are 42 scenarios
The scenarios are set on the Western front, Eastern front, North Africa, Italy and the Pacific.

The scenarios range in size from 7 turns to 60 turns.

Some are listed below.

The units are mostly company sized (3 platoons). Some units are only 2 platoons or one platoon in strength.

Each green spot on the counter represents one platoon. Note the number of green spots on the next screen shot

Each hex is about 500 meters across. The map sizes of the different scenarios range from 30 X 25 hexes up to 100 x 75 hexes.

There are 3 zoom levels

COMMAND

It is called “Combat Command” due to the way the command system works. In the next screenshot, I have set up a scenario. Four US units are about to attack a German unit.

Note that 2 of the US units are from one regiment and the other 2 are from a second regiment.

Let’s assume their attack values total 200 points and the defense value is 50. In a traditional wargame you would attack at odds of 4-1.

The US units are under different regimental commanders so, unlike a traditional wargame, you must put in 2 attacks each of 2-1.

Yes you can change the command structure. So, during the turn, you choose to change the command so that all 4 units are now under the same command. In fact it does not happen straight away. The change of command takes effect at the start of the next turn. So the player has a choice:

2 attacks each at 2-1 this turn or one attack at 4-1 the following turn.

In the same manner, artillery can be attached to HQ units and then they too can be included in any attacks.

Notice in the combat screen we have units from both divisions together with their divisional artillery.

Note also the combat dice is a 10 sided dice

In this case we elected to use units of the 2nd Division together with their artillery and some off board air support.

SUPPLY

A unit traces a supply line to its Battalion HQ, which traces supply to its divisional HQ which traces supply to a hex or hexes on the edge of the map.

In a traditional wargame, when a unit crosses a hex, even if the hex is not occupied, the hex now changes its ownership to the side that last crossed it. The opponent cannot draw supply through that hex.

In Combat Command an opponent can still draw supply through that hex. This makes for a very fluid game as units can move back and forth without any great supply concerns.

The only restrictions on supply are that supply cannot be drawn through a hex occupied by an enemy unit, through the ZOC of an enemy unit or across a major river without a bridge.

PHASES.

Each turn is split into phases and each side goes through one phase at a time. Some phases are resolved automatically so that from the players point of view the phases are:

Movement
Direct Fire
Attack Phase
Advance / Withdrawl phase

EDITOR

The scenario editor is very easy to use. Possibly the easiest in wargaming.

The following screen shots are taken from the editor and I feel are self explanatory.

The next screen shot is from the Guadacanal scenario

The next is a portion of the Stalingrad map in the autumn with the units removed from the map

The next is from the Hurtegon Forext

A screen shot from Carentan

And finally one from Bastogne

CONCLUSION

This wargame is inexpensive and very simple. It is a joy to play!

.
.

Friday no

And they dont work on weekends so I guess thats it !

-

Monday no

The forum has been down for some months.

Anybody hear anything?

-

There is a wargame named Computer War in Europe for Windows.

One of the scenarios is a 20 turn scenario titled “France 1944”.

I just completed 3 PBEM games against 3 separate players. A combined AAR follows.

The scenario commences with the Germans holding 7 objectives. They only need to hold 1 objective to win the game.

Game 1: I played as the Allies with Attrition ON
Game 2: I played as the Allies with Attrition ON
Game 3: I played as the Axis with Attrition OFF

In the game, a naval port can be “Major” or “Minor”. A Major port can provide supply to a distance of 10 movement points. A Minor port only 4 movement points.

Supply units and Railway repair units can be transported across the sea. But their journey must begin and end in a Major port.

It is important then, that the Allies capture a Major port as soon as possible. The 3 candidates are Le Harve in Normandy, Cherbourg in Normandy and Brest in Brittany.

The first screen shot shows these ports and their relationship to Paris.

Le Harve is heavily defended. And if captured, my troops would need to spread east and east across France and it would be difficult to concentrate the forces. This leaves Cherbourg and Brest.

In Game 1, my Allies landed in Brittany and quickly captured Brest. In Game 2, my Allies landed in Normandy and quickly captured Cherbourg.

The Brittany peninsula has more room to manoeuvre than does the Normandy area. With attrition ON, surely the German forces will be worn down much faster than the Allied forces.

In both games, my opponents rushed troops to the landing beaches. My troops in Brittany had more mobility so I could make more attacks. Also, I could replace worn units with fresh units at will. I feel Brittany is a better landing location than Normandy.

In Game 1, the French partisans, were able to damage railway lines between Brest and Paris and those railway lines that run to Southern France and the Mediterranean coast.

With his supplies cut, the Game 1 opponent withdrew and formed a line centred at Paris and running more or less north south from Paris. But the line did not reach the Swiss border. He retained supply lines running east to the German border.

In Game 2, the French partisans were more effective. They cut the rail lines running from Germany to France and those railway lines that run to Southern France and the Mediterranean coast. The Game 2 opponent also withdrew and he too formed a line centred at Paris and more or less running north south from there.

At about the time of the 2 withdrawals, the weather turned bad. With mud and snow I had much trouble moving and attacking. The bad weather and Attrition ON were the 2 major factors.

In Game 1, my opponent left some troops to fight a rearguard action. I intended to by-pass these troops except their ZOC meant I had to give them a wide berth, so I decided to destroy them. However, I had trouble gathering the forces to do this. Eventually I sent the paras back to the UK and they jumped and destroyed these troops. But this cost me a lot of time.

Note also with the change in the weather, the colour of the hexes has changed.

North of Paris, I tried to force a river crossing without success. So I tried an amphibious assault behind his lines. I intended to land 2 units. One would protect the beachhead and the other would advance one hex. This unit would project ZOC into the surrounding hexes and annoy him. He might even choose to withdraw his northern flank.

With that I tried to swing around the south of Paris to surround Paris but the mud and Attrition ON stopped me more than the Germans did!

In Game 2, with the rail between France and Germany cut, the opponent withdrew from Paris and I followed him east. But again the mud and Attrition slowed my advance.

In both games, I got nowhere near the final 2 objectives in Belgium and both opponents held 2 objectives at the end of the games.

In Game 3, I played as the Germans and Attrition was OFF. This game was started when I was about half way through the 2 other games. I hoped to use my experience to gain a victory!

My opponent landed at Normandy. Around Cherbourg my troops were weak and he took longer to capture it than I thought. I could feel a victory coming on!

He attacked hard al along the line and my defence held strong. He tried to advance south east without success. He tried to advance south west and finally succeeded.

In the meantime he placed his partisans more cleverly than I had done so and cut my supply lines to the east.

I intended to make a slow careful fighting withdrawl. However, with Attrition OFF and his troops at full strength, they were able to advance before the weather turned bad and advance faster than I anticipated. Quickly the bulk of my forces were caught in a pocket.

Just then the weather did turn bad. I withdrew the remainder of my forces as fast as I could towards the West Wall but with Attrition OFF and my supplies cut, he seemed to advance faster than I could withdraw.

Soon much of my army was destroyed. He passed through the gaps in my line and entered Germany and the country surrendered.

Meanwhile, in the south of France: At turn 9, landing craft became available and I invaded Southern France.

I am still a relative newby to the game engine. In Game 1, I made a mistake and landed at the Italian city of….. and in Game 2 the mistake was to land at the French city of ……….. Of course I should have landed near the Major French port of Marseille and captured it as quickly as possible!

In Game 1, I advanced quickly. Too quickly! My opponent re-occupied a vacant……Without supply, my troops in Southern France are doomed!

Then he made an unexpected attack and got a Both Retreat “BR” result! He had to leave the port and I recaptured it! Yaay!

Anyhow, in both games, I was able to advance into Southern France, up to Lyon and then around the Swiss border generally towards Germany.

All the games were enjoyable to play. I learnt much and will do better next time!

In SSG’s game “Battlefront” game, there is a scenario named Gazala. It covers Rommel’s drive on Tobruk.

In my view, this is one of the best scenarios in the whole series of SSG’s games.

The scenario has it al! Large sweeping armoured movements, close infantry fighting, armoured clashes, dogged defence, supply problems etc etc.

The map covers the coastline from Gazala to Tobruk as well as the area inland to the Free French defences at Bir Hakiem.

If 2 players are of equal ability, then, in my opinion, the Allied player should have a victory. But the Axis player can win so long as he thinks like Rommel. Battlefront brought some new innovations to wargaming that would of benefit, a “Rommel” type of player.

Battlefront, gave wargaming, the concept of attack supply as separate from defence supply.

So it is the Axis player needs to form 2 battlegroups. Each battlegroup would be made up of armour, infantry, artillery, an attack HQ and a defence HQ.

The idea is that each one moves about the map destroying allied units. As each one runs short of attack supply it stops and entrenches. Then the other battlegroup takes over and continues the rampage.

The next screen shot shows a battlegroup formed up ready to advance. Note the infantry is leading, with engineers behind, armour behind them and artillery at the rear together with the HQ units.

A clever player will have multiple battlegroups moving over various parts of the map and the allied player will never know where the next blow will fall.

Many of the Allied troops are worth high victory points but most of the Axis troops are worth only few victory points. This means that, where the Axis advance, then, mostly, the Allies must withdraw or else lose many valuable units. This means withdrawing almost right back to Tobruk!

Should Bir Hakiem be captured?

To win the scenario, the Axis must either capture Bir Hakiaem or else go around it and capture the objectives deep in the British Commonwealth rear.

In a typical game, the winning margin will be will be some hundreds of points. The Objective of Bir Hakiem is worth 1,875 points and the Free French troops there are worth 610 points making a total of 2,485

Even the best players take 7 or so turns of a 23 turn scenario to capture it. So there is incentive to go around it.

In the early turns the British Commonwealth forces, are quite scattered. If Axis battlegroups moved quickly and go around Bir Hakiem, the battlegroups should destroy most Commonwealth forces they meet. This opens the door to a series of objectives around an area that became known as “Knightsbridge”.

The value of the objectives that could be captured and are not usually captured, amount to 1,865 and the Commonwealth troops that could be destroyed amount to maybe, perhaps 2,000 points. Which makes a total of perhaps 2,800 points

In the meantime, Axis troops in the west need to push hard. It is important the Axis threaten the valuable objectives of Ain El Gazala and Alem Hamza, which between them are worth and of 2,120

The Commonwealth defences are very strong and the Italians, except for a few units, are not so good. The purpose of an attack in the west is to draw off the Commonwealth troops in the centre and in the east.

In my view, instead of a direct attack, the Axis should move around the south and then strike north.

As usual some battlegroups need to be formed, with a mix of infantry, armour, artillery, engineers, attack HQ and defence HQ.

If the Commonwealth troops move to defend the objectives in the west, the Axis troops that went around Bir Hakiem have a much better go at advancing.

However. The French troops at Bir Hakiem are few in number but have much combat power. Once it has become obvious that the Axis are not going to attack the fortress, the French will probably begin to make short excursions out of the fort, with a view to cutting the Axis supply lines. The desert is so large this is quite difficult to do but the Axis will need to leave a battlegroup behind keep a watch on the situation.

Also, the French do have some entrenched artillery and this can damage Axis units passing near to the fort.

I think this is a terrific scenario. It is too bad it is not played so much.

-

The game: Computer War in Europe II

There is a Scenario named Kursk. It is 18 turns long.

I have now played it by PBEM from both sides against 2 different people. This is a sort of combined AAR of the 2 games.

We start with the victory conditions.

The Axis need to hold Russian Personnel Centres (“RPC”) at the end of the game as follows:

8 or more = Axis victory
6 or 7 = a draw
5 or less = a Russian victory.

As the scenario opens, the Axis already holds 7 RPC’s. The Axis need to capture 1 more RPC for a victory. The Russians need to re-capture 2 RPC for a victory.

Looking at the map, there are 3 the Moscow area.

And there are 4 in the south of the map. Kharkov begins in Axis hands and Stalingrad is impossible to capture in this scenario so that leaves 2 to be fought over.

Leningrad is a RPC as is the city one hex to the northwest. But both are impossible to capture during the course of this particular Scenario.

As the scenario opens, there is a bulge around the city of Kursk. However Kursk is not a RPC. And therefore not a victory location.

But, just north of Kursk, is the city of Orel and this is a RPC. And so the Axis, need to attack the Kursk bulge from the north simply as a way of protecting Orel

In the first game, my Russian troops slowly withdrew from the Kursk salient and used the troops to defend the 2 RPCs in the south. My Axis opponent put a big effort into attempting to destroy the troops in the salient. Late in the game he attacked towards the RPCs in the south but they were by then well defended and the lines held.

So long as the Russians don’t lose too many troops in the Kursk salient, they have a powerful force. In the first game, after withdrawing troops from the Kursk salient, my Russian troops attacked Orel, just north of Kursk and ultimately it was not too hard to capture it.

In the second game, my Axis troops started by attacking the north shoulder of the Kursk salient. The idea was to push back the Soviets so that in the long run the RPC of Orel would remain in Axis hands. This seemed to be working but my canny Russian opponent stretched my forces across the map and ultimately Orel fell to the Soviets. So the city fell in both games.

Meanwhile, in the south, my Axis forces put in a big effort against the 2 RPC’s there and both were captured. However, due to using the attrition option, my Axis forces became weaker as the scenario went on and my Russian opponent recaptured one of them.

From the Russians point of view, the Kursk bulge is useful, in keeping occupied a large number of Axis troops, who might otherwise be attacking deep into the Russian motherland. And yet the troops therein are very useful in making counterattacks.

Air superiority plays a big part in this scenario. The Axis begin with 22 Air Points (“AP”) and the Russians begin with 13.

The Axis receive an average of 1.60 AP’s replacements per turn and the Russian receives 0.50

If the Axis begin the Scenario by placing 18 AP’s in the Air Superiority box and (and use the remainder for ground support) and the Russians place 12, this means mathematically, the Russians will lose 3 AP’s in air combat per turn and the Axis will lose 2.

As the Axis can replace their losses much quicker than the Russians, the Russians will run out of AP’s after only 5 turns!

Further, a canny Axis player will keep track of the AP’s lost by the Soviets and after a few turns place only 12 AP’s in the air superiority box leaving more to be used for ground support. Eventually he only needs to place 6 AP’s in the air superiority box per turn to account for those late game AP replacements the Russian receives.

Having read this, a canny Russian player, could begin by placing no AP’s in the air superiority box until such a time he has 18 available and then use them all in one go.

Then the following turn, remove all AP’s from the air superiority box until such time he has accumulated 18 AP’s and strike again!. This will keep the Axis player on his toes and cause him to place 18 AP’s in the air superiority box for most of the scenario. This means he has 12 fewer to use in the ground support role and should lead to a near automatic Russian victory.

As it turns out, in the first game my Soviets had a victory and in the second game my Axis troops held on for a draw. In this second game, we were helped in this by some bad weather which slowed the advance of the Russians.

I am a newby to this game system and this was a good learning experience.

I have discovered another wargame.

Computer War in Europe - by Decision Games.

A demo of the game can be downloaded. The demo includes the full manual.

http://www.decisiongames.com/wwii/europe/europe.htm

The game has that board game look and feel but it is not as board gamey as the screen shots make out.

The game has a series of Scenarios and Campaigns.

The Scenarios and Campaigns are set in various places across the map and in various weather conditions

The difference between Scenarios and Campaigns is that Campaigns include production

The first screeny is from the Russian front

The boot of Italy.

The English channel

The final screen shot shows how tactical air warfare is resolved.

The player has a choice as to where he can move his available air points. The choices are:

Air Superiority
Ground Support
Air Sea interdiction
Transfer the points to another front

Kharkov – an AAR

I recently played a game against Hank. Here is a small AAR.

Hank’s Soviets started with the usual assault on Kharkov from the northeast
-

-

Players would be aware that the Germans stationed in Kharkov, can make devastating counterattacks over the open ground in a north easterly direction.

After a few turns, Hank mentioned he had not yet played as the Soviet side. I thought his advance toward Kharkov was not as vigorous as it might be and I suspect he was concerned about German counterattacks in the area.

My response was to hedgehog an infantry unit out front hoping to disrupt his advance. I included a recon unit in the stack as this unit can “see” further than standard units. I was hoping the recon unit would spot any major advance coming and at the same time spot any uncovered artillery units he might have so I could send over some counter battery fire
-

-

Placing these units out there was a bit of a gamble. I was trying to set up a defensive line as you can see and removing these units from that line might prove disastrous!

Meanwhile in the south, he quickly broke through. The units of the German 62nd infantry division have a number of options.

They can hedgehog in situ. The problem with this is that to be effective they would need to be 2 hexes apart. Then they could adversely affect the Soviets supply. They could move so they are 2 hexes apart and entrench. But then it takes another turn before they can hedgehog and the Soviets could attack and damage these units during the one turn delay. Further, to entrench whilst out of supply costs a supply can and the act of hedge hogging uses up a supply can and the Soviet attack would also use up a German supply can. So, the division, while hedgehogged in a good location, would be down 3 supply cans and not likely to last the distance!

And, if the Soviets simply go around the 62nd infantry division to their south, Soviet supply is not affected by the presence of the division.

Or the division could withdraw towards either Kharkov or Krasnograd. If they withdraw towards either objective it weakens the defence of the other. Its a tough call.

I chose to withdraw towards Kharkov. Ultimately it is the most valuable objective on the map. The 62nd infantry division then entrenched and then hedgehoged in the rough ground approaching kharkov
-

-

His Soviet armour sliced through right between Kharkov and Krasnograd. This was clever as his armour was invisible to me for about 2 turns and this was a concern.

As it turned out the armour turned south and moved towards Kragnosgrad.

I moved some weak troops to defend Kransograd and was able to hedgehog a few of these. There was much combat and I was very worried for a while but Kransograd held.

In the meantime, down in the south, my German attack started. I noticed that he did not occupy his strong points (“SP”) with entrenched troops. As a result, to destroy a SP with artillery takes a single dice instead of a double dice.

In the early turns, my artillery took out as many strong points as possible to clear the way for the coming offensive.

When the offensive began, his initial defence behind the river was pretty good and my advance was slower than I had hoped for.

-

-

But soon my troops had moved up to the river which flows nearby to Izyum

I had hoped to capture this objective but just then my attack supply ran out and the offensive stalled! I got within 2 hexes of the objective but his defence was too good and I could not get any closer.

There would be little movement around this area for the remains of the game.

I placed interdiction, as shown in the next screenshot but he said it had no detriment to the supply of his troops to that were west of this area

As a result, his armour that had been threatening Krasnograd, turned north to threaten Kharkov.

There was now much fighting south of Kharkov. I had hoped the interdiction in the screen shot above would cut the supply to the Soviet armour here but he says it did not.

Ultimately the fighting bogged down around here till the end of the game.

If the final score were 300 points or less this would result in a draw. As the game wound down with about 5 turns remaining, the projected score was about 290 points in his favour and as we approached the end, the figure slowly reduced but I thought for sure he would score a points victory.

As the German player moves last, my last turn was a very gamey turn. I moved troops to places I would never move them if it were not the last turn and destroyed a few Soviet units. The game was officially a draw but I got a points victory.

Otherwise it was a great tight game which went down to the wire!

We need to think of how the gamey last turn can be avoided.

We both found our movement restricted by the Areas of Operation. It seems to me that

-a tournament game should be played using random AO’s;
-PBEM game is best played without using the AO’s and;
-a game against the excellent AI should always use the AO’s
-Interdiction plced near Izygny has no adverse effect on the Russian supply to the west of this point. This does not make sense.
-

Allow the game to have screen resolutions: from 1024 x 768 up to 1680 x 1050 - perhaps greater to alow for future technology.

Presume a 22" wide screen monitor is typical. Presume a player sets the game to 1680x 1050.

Now paint the maps so they are no greater than 2 screens high by 2 screens wide.

-

The maps in Close Combat Modern tactics are huge! At least 4 times the size of maps in CC5.

The game should be designed to fill a typical wide screen monitor.

The screen resolution should be very high. A typical map should be no more than 2 screens wide and 2 screens high.

Instead of moving the mouse to the edge of the screen to move about, we should be able to grab the map with a "hand" symbol and drag the map up and down and back and forth.

-


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