Search found 27 matches

I am assuming you have access to the Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second WW Vol. III "The Victory Campaign" Operations in North Western Europe by Col Stacey, in particular pages 392 - 421 pertaining to the Battle of the Sheldt.

Number 10 Commando (inter-allied)?

what about 48 Commando that landed at westkapelle on Nov1st?

Those are good.

I have another one:

Beancounter Rotation: The practice of withdrawing squads from combat after taking 50% or less casualties. This is a min-max strategy that manifests as a strange and sudden withdrawal of engaged squads after a brief fire fight. The idea is to avoid losing any infantry teams by skillfilly managing the amount of men the squad loses, in order not to lose the team to the 75% casualty threshold.

As a public service, I am sharing some of the nicknames and slang that I have come up with, or have heard used by others, for some of the CC5 gameplay and tactics used by some players. This is by no means exhaustive, but maybe others will want to add their own slang to this list:

Pump and Dump: Some players use this tactic when they confront a strong point. If they are trying to take a bunker or strong defensive position, they hit it with every mortar, tank, artillery machinegun they have, then dump a infantry charge on the position.

Vietcong: Trying to take a victory location by sneaking a small squad, usually highly expendable, through covered terrain.

Etcha-Sketching: The practice of using infantry teams to crawl close to defensive positions to extend the setup area on the next battle on that map.

Etcha-Sketch Commando: A lone squad that is sent into enemy territory on a suicide mission to take terrain, the practice of expanding your captured territory with suicide marches by lone teams of expendable or low quality troops.

Suicide Recon: The practice of using single survivors of decimated infantry teams to walk into enemy territory to uncover enemy positions. Some players figure since the team is lost anyways due to exceeding the 75% casualty rate, that they may as well use them for suicide recon.

Clock-Charges: In games with a time limit, some players will wait until 3 or less minutes are left in the game in order to mass charge a position. This only works when no morale is used. This usually works because even if decimated, there is usually no time left to recapture the lost terrain. Very expensive in manpower.

The game code is written so that leaders have a high chance of getting hit, its an assumption on the designer that they "lead from the front" and so had a higher casualty rate.

Its not exactly realistic....

The ranks of platoon leaders are a little weird, there is a attrition value for leadership that degrades the BG platoon leaders rank as the total manpower pool goes down. however there is no provision for "replacement" and lateral promotion...

ive seen the same behavious using different settings at different times.

This information does not account for the behavious I have seen in GJS and Stalingrad.

I do not have this problem with other mods. I have been playing long enough to know how the AI behaves normally.

I would love to help, I have plenty of information like that already. Anything I can do to help make this mod multiplayer would be my pleasure. It really is a great mod.

I dont know what it is exactly that the modders changed in the values that affected the defensive value of the AI, but I am sure that its not a figment of my imagination. I have played both sides for both mods, several times, and seen the same thing over and over again. Combat teams stop firing at targets in full view, or dont fire at all. I have seen players exploit this flaw several times, attacking in one direction to distract then attacking in another to run/drive past your defenses that wont do anything unless you give them direct orders.

Others mods dont do this, its something I have only seen in Stalingrad and GJS, and that others have seen as well. Some people like micro management, some people like RTS style gameplay, but I dont like it in my close combat, so I avoid those mods. I am back to Omaha actually and loving it, and excellent mod all around, except for the over enthusiasm on sherman modelling..... I am sure plenty of people love the two mods mentioned, and they are very popular, there is no doubt. However, the fact remains that the mods changed the way ai decides to engage, and these changes were not part of the original design of gameplay for CC5. I have been playing CC since the first one came out, so I have some idea of what I the game should play like.

Otherwise, the two mods mentioned are wonderful, the maps are great and the research excellent, too bad about gameplay.

My fault, I should have been more specific:

The term AI is too general obviously, what I meant was dont mess with the engagement decision. Units should fire at targets automatically, when on "defend". Thats pretty much it. This is what the "defend" command is for.

To all Close Combat modders, I have a couple of things to mention:

First of all thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into modding this great game. I have really reaped the benefit of all of the wonderful people who put their time into making these great mods. I am trully grateful. Thats why it pains me to make the second remark:

Although I hate to whine about something that is free, I have one request to make for the future modding efforts out there:

Please leave the AI alone. The original CC5 ai was excellent, and it was designed by a group of professionals. In fact the Ai for the entire CC series is excellent. However some modders out there seem to think they can improve on it, or that it needs tweaking. Trust me, it doesnt. Leave the AI alone. In particular the GJS mod and the Stalingrad mod suffer from this problem. Soldiers are meant to fire at targets in their Field of View, tanks dont wait for a command to engage another tank. Watching squads die because I didnt give them the order to fire, or better yet, having to give them the order to fire again and again, is not Close Combat: its mircomanagement RTS style. Please stop this trend in the modding scene, it makes the GJS and Stalingrad mods unplayable.

This has been a public announcement by The Ministry of Fun.

Cheers

PS: Would someone please mod the invasion of Norway, Crete, and Tunisia (torch). These are great subjects for mods and are begging to be made. I would like this mods to be ready for download by tomorrow if possible Wink

Where can I download it?

yes, that doesnt work either. Thanks for the suggestion though.

can anyone from the BoB mod team confirm that?

Yes, your facts are correct on all counts. However, dont you think the germans would have been able to re-supply light ammunition (small arms) through captured airfields north of Dover? They pretty much carried out an invasion of Norway exclusively by air, and I doubt the RAF would have been able to stop the flow of light troops and supply from the air, the entire Kent area was within fighter range. Besides attempting to take on the Luftwaffe over Kent would have pretty much played right into the german air advantage.

I think the RN would have cut off all other supply, and possibly even destroyed a chunk of the barge trains before they reached england, or on their way back.

The ones that say Stalingrad Der Kessel?

They look awesome!

Yes, i meant Portsmouth, not plymouth. You are correct about the 1st armored division, but it did have one army tank regiment (heavy) out of its 3 regiments. Those would have included matilda II. The rest would have been scattered among the independant army brigades as you pointed out.

The deployment plan I quoted was from Brookes revamped plan of mobile defense. The 3 infantry divisions that I mentioned were considered fully equipped line divisions, of which there were 8 in total. The rest of the 40 or so infantry "divisions" in england were missing transport, heavy equipment and pretty much consisted only of rifle equipped territorials.

The real defense of england was the Royal Navy, but it was deployed out of bomber range in Scappa Flow. In the event of a seabourne invasion, it would have had to run a gauntlet of minefields, submarines and stuka attacks before reaching the channel. I do believe that some of the landings would have been heavily interefered with by the RN despite this, and any mod of sealion would have to give the defenders some fairly heavy naval artillery support along the landings on day 2 +.

I believe that the germans would have had 1 or 2 days at most of unempeeded supply flow accross the channel, after that their reinforcements and rate of supply would have been almost exclusively air supplied (a trickle) I dont believe that RN would have been stopped from cutting the channel crossings clean. The problem is, 9 german divisions would be accross at that point (4 more than at D-Day!) Would they have been able to take london and force a surrender of the english government? Possibly.....

I would love to play Bloody Omaha, or the wonderful Meuse mod, or Okinawa. I am sick of the Stalingrad and GJS mods because of the disabled defensive AI. Both those mods have removed the normal Ai that makes units fire at targets inside their arc of fire when placed in Defensive mode. This means that squads can run right past defensive points if you dont give fire order. Its silly and make-work gaming, especially because I have the hyper fast scrolling problem that nothing I do seems to fix. The most annoying feature of Stalingrad is having to give the same fire order again and again, units will simply stop shooting after a few seconds, its pretty retarded.

I hear you about the lack of tanks in Omaha, but that is the historical situation. The defensive fortifications on the beach should give you plenty of time to delay the landing forces, but any realistic depiction of the Omaha beach battle will give the allies overwhelming material advantage. Its not impossible to delay the beach landing schedule considerably, and I enjoy the inland battles, especially due to the lack of equipment that you suffer under at that point.

I really dont know why Omaha is so unpopular, but these are my guesses:

Too realistic, the omaha beaches were a slaughter compared to Utah, guess thats why they made Utah the subject of CC5..... American forces get mauled through most of Omaha on the beaches, but its a wonderful mod with great maps and beautiful equipment. Out of all the beach landings on D-Day, the Omaha beaches were the best defensive terrain (cliffs, open fields of fire from height advantage) and were manned by the worst german troops.

Lack of tracers are realistic, but people have grown used to the cruch and dont know how to employ scouts properly to counter ambush fire. I also believe that the host is the one with no tracers, and that possibly the other guy doesnt have the same benefit. I may be mistaken on that though.

German anti-tank is realistic, so american armor gets cooked most of the time. Add to this the fact that several german units have integral panzerfaust and panzershreck, and people have to use tactics instead of firepower to take objectives.

I personally love the mod, I think its one of the better done mods out there.


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