Search found 5 matches

The scope of those games are to large with to many single units to be played in CC strategy level. But some of the smaller scenarios could be used as basis for a mod where the strategic part of CC would be greatly improved. For example one of the scenarios with the battle for the Orne bridges the allies compromising mostly of 6th British airborne division and the germans have mostly regulars, artillery and some prime armoured infantry battalions at their disposal.

There's not really any point in making the units smaller than battalions since it really would take a battalion to take a standard CC map even if you only would attack with one company some companies would secure the flanks and some company might need to rest or simply is not present due to rapid movement of the battalion, communication problems etc. Basically with an improved strategic part of the game there would be fewer occasions where the full battalions strength is available.. battalions would have reduced strength from artillery attacks, disorganization, fatigue and supply cuts by the opponent.

All in all the scenario with the orne bridges starts with around 30 battalion sized units for each side and the area of operations is roughly 3 x 5 miles. I think even having 60 units might be to much to move around in a CC context. But the fact is that around half of those 60 units (both sides) is supporting brigades such as engineers, anti tank, HQ, artillery, flak AA and mech recon. Basically it's not much of a point in having all those support brigades moving around the map alone, instead they should be attached to the infantry and mechanized units giving them specific abilities and support.

With the above simplifications the Orne scenario would require somtething like 60 maps or more to make room for movement.

I think an improvement of the strategic view would do much to enhance this game. In its present form a modded CC is an almost perfect tactical level simulator. With tactical I mean squad or sections manoeuvring and combat. However the operational part of the game that includes company sized units to divisions is not very advanced in any CC game I have tried, best example have to be CC2.

I have always thought larger battlemaps would solve the problem but as I gave it a thought in the "mapsize debate thread" I concluded that's not the problem.

So last weekend I set out to find some good example of a game that covered the operational level of WW2. In the 1990s the developer of our beloved CC, Atomic Games, made a series of advanced strategy games called "V for victory" and "World at war". Today these games are ancient in regards to graphics (runs in DOS) but the strategic part of the games (at operational level) is extremely good even by present standards.

Applying some of the basic features from these old games to improve the "strategic view" of CC would be amazing. Those games are hex based but I don't think it's possible to have every square inch covered with a battlemap so for CC use it would be better with a more network like structure where the strategically important places is covered.

I'm curious how much modding can be done at this level in CC(5)?

I add a short wish list to start from:

You can find an extensive list of historical notes and game features included in the "V for victory" games in the attached PDF file. Note especially the "Stacking" chapter where the with of fronts for battalion sized units is discussed.

As an example have a look at some maps for the 501st US airborne regiments landings on D-day.

First an idea of what 501st looks like. As far as I can figure 501st this day consisted of: 3 battalions, each having 4 companies. I think a company is a good size of a unit to take a map in CC.

An infantry (or airbourne?) company would in CC consist of something like:

3 - bazooka teams
2 - 30cal machinegun teams
9 - rifle squads
4 - platoon HQ
1 - Company HQ

First we have corps beachhead at the end of DD:

The green box marks a pretty standard CC map with size of 500x500 meters. The red box is 501st 1st and 2nd (3rd battalion was reserves to the north, se map above) companies operation area shown in next map

The green box are notably larger but still just a tiny fraction of the area where 501st conducts it's operations this first day. In CC5 the red box consists of only one map and 501st is a unit on the map and moves as a whole. I'm arguing that changing the scope of the game to perhaps battalion level would render more strategic options. This means splitting each CC5 "strategic" unit into 4 and effectivly reducing the area of a grand campaign to 1/4?

Consider this last image where a suggestion of standard battle maps at important locations is placed on the last map:

The blue boxes shows the placing of standard size (500x500m) battlemaps with more network like connections in red. The green lines could be direction of artillery support (from high ground) provided the brigade has placed a company with artillery there. Many interesting strategic possibilities could be introduced at the strategic level such as artillery companies, anti air companies, encircling etc.. But the point is that the battlemaps size stay roughly the same.

I think the biggest problem with the current small and medium sized maps is they don't give much room to manoeuvre. This gives both the defender and attacker very few options. The attacker can't encircle or flank very well and the defender cant use hit and ambush tactics in any real sense. The fight use to be concentrated on a few key locations on each map and tends to get fairly static.

Though a large or huge map with more units 30 or more would hardly be enjoyable because of the extensive micro management that would require. Introducing a boosted AI that could control your forces on the map while you focus on the most important area could help. But that will in a sense change the scope of the game to a level equal to what you see when hitting the zoom out (minus) button.

A reasonable fix in my opinion is to greatly enhance the macro level of the game that you control in the "Strategic" view. This part of the game is the weakest link giving very few options. I've only played CC2 and CC5, but between them CC2 at least gives you some connection between the battles and the strategic map. In CC5 it's fight till the end, in CC2 you could as germans ambush the allies blow the bridge and leave the map. Or as allies if all your AT teams are gone and the germans come after you with tanks you withdraw from the map and reinforce.

If the strategic level of the game would give more of the options that you would have with huge battlemaps and those options would affect the battles then fighting small maps to get a strategic advantage would be more enjoyable.

I'd like to make a case for the german Marder III.. Artillery on wheels I'd say.

They are fine for ambushing allied tanks from far far away. Take a few shots and then regroup and let your opponent waste thier mortars and airstrikes on the position you fired from. When they dare to advance again repeat from your new position. A cannon would be flanked or destroyed by mortar fire, but the marder just vanishes Smile

Of course you can use other tanks in the germans arsenal in the same role but having a few marders frees up your other tanks for close and personal infantry support.


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