Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:43 pm Post subject: New Kremenskaïa map
Hi,
I have begun to work on the SDK v2.0.
As you may know, SDK v2.0 will be released together with a submod called SDK:DK (Die Kampfgruppen) relating the fights of various Kampfgruppen in the Don/Tschir area between november 19th and beginning december, 1942.
There will be 3 new maps for this submod(the submod itself will be playable on about 20 maps). I have attached a picture of the first finished one, Kremenskaïa, on the Don. Kremenskaïa was, with Serafimovitch, one of the two important soviet bridgeheads on the Don in november 42
PJ
I'm a big fan of both SDK as well as SOC. Excellent job.
I do have one request to make that I KNOW several others share as well. I realize the principal design of these mods is for single play vs the AI. And I respect your desires as the mod maker in keeping true to that intention.
BUT, there are many of us who likewise enjoy playing multiplayer head to head (h2h). Would it be possible to create a submod that would better facilitate h2h play? Something that evens out the ammo and morale or at least makes it possible for German counteroffensives?
I'm not a mod maker so I have no idea how difficult it is to achieve this, but it would be greatly appreciated by many.
One other observation. H2H play arguably brings a lot more visibility to a mod because the clans will use it in wars and the creation of extensive AAR's that everyone enjoys reading.
Again thanks to you and any other contributors for making an excellent mod and keeping the CC interest alive.
PJ
I'm a big fan of both SDK as well as SOC. Excellent job.
I do have one request to make that I KNOW several others share as well. I realize the principal design of these mods is for single play vs the AI. And I respect your desires as the mod maker in keeping true to that intention.
BUT, there are many of us who likewise enjoy playing multiplayer head to head (h2h). Would it be possible to create a submod that would better facilitate h2h play? Something that evens out the ammo and morale or at least makes it possible for German counteroffensives?
I'm not a mod maker so I have no idea how difficult it is to achieve this, but it would be greatly appreciated by many.
One other observation. H2H play arguably brings a lot more visibility to a mod because the clans will use it in wars and the creation of extensive AAR's that everyone enjoys reading.
Again thanks to you and any other contributors for making an excellent mod and keeping the CC interest alive.
Pzt_Kevin_dtn
[/b]
Hi,
First of all, thanks for your kind comments about the CC winter mods in Stalingrad!
Ok,let's go:
1) SDK and SOC have not been made for vs.AI!! Both mods have an H2H submod available.
2) You are right. I am not an H2H player, so I don't know what the H2H players are expecting.
3) I am really interested to know what you would like to improve in the H2H mods. Please be more precise: do you want both sides with up-to-ten units? Equal morale? Equal ammo? Something else?
I amreally interested in that and will look carefully to your comments.
The only limit here is that I will never, for instance, give full ammo to the germans by january 10th..... It would be ridiculous or just arcade.
2) You are right. I am not an H2H player, so I don't know what the H2H players are expecting.
3) I am really interested to know what you would like to improve in the H2H mods. Please be more precise: do you want both sides with up-to-ten units? Equal morale? Equal ammo? Something else?
I amreally interested in that and will look carefully to your comments.
The only limit here is that I will never, for instance, give full ammo to the germans by january 10th..... It would be ridiculous or just arcade.
Cheers, friend
PJ
I will solicit some input from Pzt and get back to you with a response. Please note that h2h play does not always engage historical ops or campaigns. We are mainly interested in creating a balanced op where opposing forces both have a shot at victory. Its difficult to do that when one side starts with an ammo and/or morale disadvantage. I'll be in touch.
2) You are right. I am not an H2H player, so I don't know what the H2H players are expecting.
3) I am really interested to know what you would like to improve in the H2H mods. Please be more precise: do you want both sides with up-to-ten units? Equal morale? Equal ammo? Something else?
I amreally interested in that and will look carefully to your comments.
The only limit here is that I will never, for instance, give full ammo to the germans by january 10th..... It would be ridiculous or just arcade.
Cheers, friend
PJ
I will solicit some input from Pzt and get back to you with a response. Please note that h2h play does not always engage historical ops or campaigns. We are mainly interested in creating a balanced op where opposing forces both have a shot at victory. Its difficult to do that when one side starts with an ammo and/or morale disadvantage. I'll be in touch.
Glad to see I'm not alone with my concerns on H2H play balance (see the 'Russian Ubermenschen' tread http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=4463).
Also good to know that the mod isn't meant to be played H2H. In my experience, the H2H submod does not change much to this.
We quit our H2H campaign around the 11th turn (I surrendered as Axis ) because defending Axis infantry teams were systematically being outshot and overrun by Soviet infantry (human wave style ).
We will play a rematch(reversed sides) after our current RSR campaign, but I'm quite certain that the result will not be much different...
It would indeed be great if the game could benefit from an improved H2H mod. As mentioned by Pzt_Kevin_dtn, it would greatly widen the scope of the mod.
My thoughts on improving play balance:
- if victory is defined as controlling more victory points than your opponent, you can play with the value of victory locations on the different maps, i.e. 'weighing' the maps to allocate more VP value to f.i. the western and southern map edges. Or give high VP value to certain map edge exit locations (to simulate f.i. an early Little Saturn). That way, the Axis player could aspire a marginal victory by holding on to a limited set of maps.
- IMHO, the Soviet experience/morale advantage is way too big and a-historical from an SDK perspective (SOC is another matter, at least for morale). As mentioned in the Ubermenschen tread, I think that Soviet experience should be lower, Rumanian and Italian experience as well, and German experience should be higher.
- when playing H2H, we had a feeling that the Soviet player enjoys a substantial infantry firepower advantage. I didn't find any odd-looking data in the adb files, and I'm not an expert in this matter either. Could be that this is more related to the above experience gap (better ROF, better accuracy, ...)
- we used a house rule to limit the effect of heavy off-board and on-board (Katyusha's, Nebelwerfer, ...) artillery. Not because it's not historical, but because it is not really playable vs a human opponent (consider entering a new map as attacker in some small corner and having your troops blasted away after 2 seconds by a couple of Katyusha's and a heavy artillery barrage )
Many of the above solutions do not require you to be a rocket-scientist modder, even adjusting morale and experience levels is pretty straight-forward to do yourself. Alternatively, you can also just create a custom campaign in the scenario editor to fit your needs (f.i. to force all Soviet BGs to start from the map edge).
Ok, there are two diffrent points innyour comments, so I will dissociate them for better understanding:
1) H2H Play. It seems to me, when reading your message (Kevin's one as well) that you would like to have a H2H version without historical accuracy, something like I would personaly define as ARCADE. Hence, two comments, not only for you but to the attention of all H2H players:
a) We, the moders, are really wasting our time if you are just looking for mods where the two sides have exactly the same ammo, same morale etc.... One one game seems sufficient, under these conditions!! Let's say GJS for instance! What is in my mind interesting in modding is JUST to create mods where, AS HISTORICALLY, there is no real balance between the two sides, so that one of the sides has to play with an HANDICAP, which can be more or less severe (I admit that in SOC, it is very severe!).
b) You say that you lost your campaign after 11 rounds.... In my opinion, a game (video, cards of any other kind) is interesting if you run the risk of loosing!! Is it really interesting playing a game when you are 100% sure that you will win??? It was JUST what was wrong with 90% of the mods until today! I remember having read 10000000000 times on CC forums complaints like: "Oh, this silly CC5 is not interesting because the AI is bad and the game is ridiculously easy". And now that you have a mod which is difficult, same players complaint "Ah, it is too difficult, I can't win"!!!
What do you want exactly?
2) Regarding the AI of SOC, ONCE AGAIN what you say is purely the fruit of your imagination, Roel. As you say YOURSELF, you have been searching in my files to see what could create what you feel have seen. You did not find anything just because there isn't anything! I HATE cheating mods like some I have seen on CC for years (I will not name them by charity). What you feel is a very common feeling when a player looses a game (here as well, it can be video game, cards or any other one): he says that the opponent is cheating! This is very common thing, just because it is human.
Once again, you are completly false, and I will even tell you that, if you look carefully at the files, the german AT guns have a better accuracy than the russian ones, as they had historically. The only disanvantage of the germans is just that they fatigue more quickly than the russians, and herre again it is here something historical as these guys were starving to death.
3) Just a comment about experience of Germans and Russians. I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU when you say that the experience of the germans might be higher. HOWEVER, AND IT IS CODED IN CC, IT IS NOT MY FAULT, it is not possible to dissociate experience and morale when moding CC. If you code one unit as experienced, it will AUTOMATICALLY be set as at least good morale in the game, EVEN IF YOU CODE THIS UNIT AS 5 in experience and 0 in morale in GETeams.adb....
If you don't believe me, try it and you will see.
4) Now, for the future:
a) If there is a real demand for having a more balanced ammo level in the H2H version, I can do a submod with a slightly better ammo for the germans (let's say 50% instead of the current 30%). I am currently doing the GERMANVETMOD (yes, harder!) of SOC, so I could take opportunity to launch the two submods at the same time with version 1.1:
- A GERVET MOD for those who are not afraid to loose
- An H2H submod for those who want a more arcade play.
b) Regarding increasing the "weight" of some maps (increasing number and importance of VL's on these maps) is a VERY GOOD IDEA. I will think about it.
c) creating a campaign where all the russians attack from one side (the right one, by definition). You can already do it with the scenario editor.... It will just not be historical, but it seems that it is not really important for you, so...
First of all: thanks for your reply, it's nice to hear the opinion of the mod maker himself! I've been away for a couple of days, so I couldn't reply earlier.
I think two things should be highlighted first:
1) All remarks made in this tread (and in the 'Russian Ubermenschen' tread) are for the SDK mod, they do not apply to SOC.
2) All remarks are for H2H play, not for AI vs human.
I play almost exclusively H2H, I've given up on the AI a long time ago. Every CC player will realize after a certain time that, unless the AI is given huge and/or ridiculous advantages, there really isn't a big challenge in playing against the computer.
So, since you were interested to know what's important for H2H play, let me give you my view.
IMO, H2H campaigns should be characterized by:
1) Balanced victory chances.
This means victory in game terms (controlling VLs, so 'getting your objectives'), not in terms of winning more battles or doing more losses than your opponent. In this respect, historical accuracy can go perfectly together with H2H play balance (hence my suggestion about weighing the map VLs). Another suggestion would be to play with the difficulty of entry locations on the map. In any case, balance should be obtained by playing with the game mechanics, certainly not by playing with historical accuracy!
Alternatively, H2H players can always play from both sides and compare results afterwards; that's also a way of determining victory/defeat. No need to balance anything here, but obviously, your H2H game will take twice as long.
2) Balanced attrition rates.
In the end, every CC5 H2H GC comes down to a battle of attrition: you can 'win' let's say 75% of all battles and still get kicked of the strategic map because you don't have any more forces left to fight. Against a seasoned human opponent, it is very difficult to 'shock' your way through the map, at least before attrition starts impacting the quality of the forces you can field. It's a pity that the values of shock and numerical superiority are not incorporated more in the game, but that's the way it is... House rules are a way around this (in our next H2H campaign, we will very likely start using numerical odds -based on the current forcepools- to determine the number of teams to set up).
Therefore, for an H2H, extra attention should be paid to the relation between the total number of teams available and what I would call 'the attrition rate' of the mod.
Two examples: Nomada's CC5 AO mod has a very low attrition rate for the allies and a high attrition rate for the Germans. The Germans start from the map edge and need to work through the whole stratmap, and the BG forcepools are limited; in an H2H campaign, a German player will typically 'burn out' his BGs long before he has a chance of capturing enough terrain (and holding on to it to the end). The American player has an abundance of teams (some BGs with over 100 tanks) and basically just needs to defend what he has to attain victory.
GJS is quite different: the Commonwealth player will take heavy losses as attacker, but can generally sustain them better than the German player (who doesn't have the reinforce option). IMO, this is why GJS is so much fun to play H2H, and also an example of the point I'm trying to make. Even while the team quality edge is clearly at the German side (not only in terms of firepower & material, but also in terms of experience and morale), the German player will be 'attritioned' off the map if he doesn't economize his forces. Moreover, H2H can go both ways and victory (VL control) is often in the balance. So, a combination of historical imbalances in a pretty balanced game.
This said, I really don't want to turn this into a whole debate. My remarks are meant to be constructive and give you hints on how to improve the H2H playability of the SDK mod. As Kevin indicated, this would greatly widen the scope of the mod. The forum being a place for sharing opinions, I'm just curious to hear other opinions on this, including yours.
So let me end by saying this:
I think you're doing a truly splendid job with your modding projects, and I hope we can get more from this high-quality stuff! The maps are absolutely state-of-the-art, attention to detail is very high in all aspects of the mod. I also think that for human vs AI, your mods rank among the best there is available. For that purpose, I would recommend them to everyone.
So, I really hope you are open to (substantiated) suggestions from other die-hard players to make the mod even better!
In any case, if you ask me, the most valuable contribution of creating a new mod is having a new stratmap, new battle maps and a new set of data. Many comments made on ammo, accuracy, morale, etc. are very easy to implement in the data files, and as you mentioned, the scenario editor allows you to adjust the campaign setup as well. So, in the end, maybe you shouldn't even bother too much with all these change requests and let people work it out for themselves We should be grateful with what we got already...
Cheers from Belgium to France,
Roel
P.S. Besides, I'm currently taking my first modding steps myself, so my purpose is certainly not to piss you off ;o) I could really use the expert advice of a modder with a proven track record!
pzjager wrote:
Hi Roel,
Ok, there are two diffrent points innyour comments, so I will dissociate them for better understanding:
1) H2H Play. It seems to me, when reading your message (Kevin's one as well) that you would like to have a H2H version without historical accuracy, something like I would personaly define as ARCADE. Hence, two comments, not only for you but to the attention of all H2H players:
a) We, the moders, are really wasting our time if you are just looking for mods where the two sides have exactly the same ammo, same morale etc.... One one game seems sufficient, under these conditions!! Let's say GJS for instance! What is in my mind interesting in modding is JUST to create mods where, AS HISTORICALLY, there is no real balance between the two sides, so that one of the sides has to play with an HANDICAP, which can be more or less severe (I admit that in SOC, it is very severe!).
--- see my above point 1 on H2H characteristics. Historical accuracy is why I posted in the 'Russian Ubermenschen' tread in the first place. Before posting, I tried to verify and substantiate the observations I had regarding experience and morale. After observing that there is a big experience gap between the 2 sides, I asked myself the question: is there a historical reason for this, or is it done to give the Soviet AI better chances against a human opponent?
pzjager wrote:
b) You say that you lost your campaign after 11 rounds.... In my opinion, a game (video, cards of any other kind) is interesting if you run the risk of loosing!! Is it really interesting playing a game when you are 100% sure that you will win???
--- I forfeited the campaign after 11 rounds because we agreed that the performance of infantry teams is too unequal. We will do a rematch and compare results... I have a feeling what the result will be, but I will keep pmosted!
pzjager wrote:
It was JUST what was wrong with 90% of the mods until today! I remember having read 10000000000 times on CC forums complaints like: "Oh, this silly CC5 is not interesting because the AI is bad and the game is ridiculously easy". And now that you have a mod which is difficult, same players complaint "Ah, it is too difficult, I can't win"!!!
What do you want exactly?
--- this applies to human vs AI games, not to H2H play.
pzjager wrote:
2) Regarding the AI of SOC, ONCE AGAIN what you say is purely the fruit of your imagination, Roel. As you say YOURSELF, you have been searching in my files to see what could create what you feel have seen. You did not find anything just because there isn't anything! I HATE cheating mods like some I have seen on CC for years (I will not name them by charity). What you feel is a very common feeling when a player looses a game (here as well, it can be video game, cards or any other one): he says that the opponent is cheating! This is very common thing, just because it is human.
Once again, you are completly false, and I will even tell you that, if you look carefully at the files, the german AT guns have a better accuracy than the russian ones, as they had historically. The only disanvantage of the germans is just that they fatigue more quickly than the russians, and herre again it is here something historical as these guys were starving to death.
--- remark on German fatigue is for SOC, I suppose.
pzjager wrote:
3) Just a comment about experience of Germans and Russians. I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU when you say that the experience of the germans might be higher. HOWEVER, AND IT IS CODED IN CC, IT IS NOT MY FAULT, it is not possible to dissociate experience and morale when moding CC. If you code one unit as experienced, it will AUTOMATICALLY be set as at least good morale in the game, EVEN IF YOU CODE THIS UNIT AS 5 in experience and 0 in morale in GETeams.adb....
If you don't believe me, try it and you will see.
--- I know, I did try it (and even compiled a probability sheet for the relation between the EL/ML you put in teams.adb and what you get when selecting a team). Even only taking into account experience without morale, Soviet advantage is still around 4:1 in high experience teams. For more info, see the 'Russian Ubermenschen' tread.
One dumb question here: if you agree that German experience is indeed too low, why not making it higher? Or alternatively, make Russian experience lower?
pzjager wrote:
4) Now, for the future:
a) If there is a real demand for having a more balanced ammo level in the H2H version, I can do a submod with a slightly better ammo for the germans (let's say 50% instead of the current 30%). I am currently doing the GERMANVETMOD (yes, harder!) of SOC, so I could take opportunity to launch the two submods at the same time with version 1.1:
- A GERVET MOD for those who are not afraid to loose
- An H2H submod for those who want a more arcade play.
--- like I said: no need to sacrifice historical accuracy to get better H2H gameplay
One question here: I suppose this 30% ammo applies to SOC, not to SDK, right?
pzjager wrote:
b) Regarding increasing the "weight" of some maps (increasing number and importance of VL's on these maps) is a VERY GOOD IDEA. I will think about it.
--- glad you like it!
pzjager wrote:
c) creating a campaign where all the russians attack from one side (the right one, by definition). You can already do it with the scenario editor.... It will just not be
historical, but it seems that it is not really important for you, so...
Cheers
PJ
--- well, the main reason we changed the campaign setup is because we don't like the 'teleport' feature where Soviet BGs are dropped in the middle of the stratmap. Also, given the nature of the operation, we preferred to change most of the initial meeting engagements to Soviet attacks...
...historical...not important: see above
2) You are right. I am not an H2H player, so I don't know what the H2H players are expecting.
3) I am really interested to know what you would like to improve in the H2H mods. Please be more precise: do you want both sides with up-to-ten units? Equal morale? Equal ammo? Something else?
I amreally interested in that and will look carefully to your comments.
The only limit here is that I will never, for instance, give full ammo to the germans by january 10th..... It would be ridiculous or just arcade.
Cheers, friend
PJ
Ok I have made some inquiries in Pzt regarding h2h play for SDK AND SOC.
NOTE THAT THIS IS FOR AN H2H SUBMOD ONLY and has no impact on the core mod.
But let me make a few comments first on h2h play. This is strictly my opinion but I believe it is widely shared.
1. H2H play is NOTHING like playing the AI so there really is little comparison. As such, I don't think the requirements of h2h play should be measured against how the AI plays.
2. H2H play looks for the ability for either side to win. No one wants to fight a battle or custom op knowing that they will lose. SOC and SDK, both of which are AWESOME mods, it is assumed that the Germans will lose because of ammo and morale settings. That being the case, it is terribly difficult if not impossible to make a custom op with sufficient balance to allow for a possible German victory. And, due to the German Ammo/Morale, there is considerable limitations on the design of custom ops. You can really only design for a German defense.
3. If people are interested in playing the historical GC's or Ops with historical settings, then they can use the standard mod and don't need an h2h submod. Custom Scenario's are rarely if ever based on historical models but are designed for balance and intense fighting between opposing human opponents.
That being said, following are the Pzt responses.
1. Ammo, Ammo, Ammo for the German side. As it stands right now, if the Germans wish to make any type of assault, they have to wait until half way through a battle before even attempting an assault or counterassault because they run into the problem of running out of Ammo. With this being the case it is difficult to create custom ops with a German offensive.
2. Morale - this might be a more serious issue in SOC than in SDK. It seems that units are more prone to surrender and fatigue. This is a considerable handicap for the German side.
3. Rocket Launchers - it was commented that rocket launchers play TOO significant of a role in the game play. It was suggested that maybe they should only be available on a recruit setting.
-*- Kevin's opinion on the Rocket Launchers - If necessary we can always design an op with rules banning the use of such Rocket Launchers if we feel it necessary for the balance of an h2h op.
So in summary, Ammo is the critical component and we request that it be set to full. Morale is a secondary item of consideration. The rocket launchers can be worked with from a rules standpoint.
We don't think anything else needs to be adjusted. The maps are great, the unit counts and composition are just fine and workable, and the hit/kill ratios seem to be good (*edit - see question below).
So taking all the above into consideration, let me reemphasize again that h2h play looks for balance. I realize the Ammo request runs contrary to historical design but we really need the balance to have the flexibility in design and to give the Germans a shot at assaulting and winning. This is only a request for the h2h submod and should have no impact on the core mod.
I've told you on many an occassion that both SOC and SDK are fantastic mods and I really appreciate all the time and talent that went into their creation. I do hope you take our h2h requests into consideration.
*Edit - question on SDK - it seems that the Germans are not as effective in SDK as they are in SOC. Is there a reason for this? Did you update or improve something for the Germans in SOC that you have not gone back to address in SDK yet?
2) You are right. I am not an H2H player, so I don't know what the H2H players are expecting.
3) I am really interested to know what you would like to improve in the H2H mods. Please be more precise: do you want both sides with up-to-ten units? Equal morale? Equal ammo? Something else?
I amreally interested in that and will look carefully to your comments.
The only limit here is that I will never, for instance, give full ammo to the germans by january 10th..... It would be ridiculous or just arcade.
Cheers, friend
PJ
Ok I have made some inquiries in Pzt regarding h2h play for SDK AND SOC.
NOTE THAT THIS IS FOR AN H2H SUBMOD ONLY and has no impact on the core mod.
But let me make a few comments first on h2h play. This is strictly my opinion but I believe it is widely shared.
1. H2H play is NOTHING like playing the AI so there really is little comparison. As such, I don't think the requirements of h2h play should be measured against how the AI plays.
2. H2H play looks for the ability for either side to win. No one wants to fight a battle or custom op knowing that they will lose. SOC and SDK, both of which are AWESOME mods, it is assumed that the Germans will lose because of ammo and morale settings. That being the case, it is terribly difficult if not impossible to make a custom op with sufficient balance to allow for a possible German victory. And, due to the German Ammo/Morale, there is considerable limitations on the design of custom ops. You can really only design for a German defense.
3. If people are interested in playing the historical GC's or Ops with historical settings, then they can use the standard mod and don't need an h2h submod. Custom Scenario's are rarely if ever based on historical models but are designed for balance and intense fighting between opposing human opponents.
That being said, following are the Pzt responses.
1. Ammo, Ammo, Ammo for the German side. As it stands right now, if the Germans wish to make any type of assault, they have to wait until half way through a battle before even attempting an assault or counterassault because they run into the problem of running out of Ammo. With this being the case it is difficult to create custom ops with a German offensive.
2. Morale - this might be a more serious issue in SOC than in SDK. It seems that units are more prone to surrender and fatigue. This is a considerable handicap for the German side.
3. Rocket Launchers - it was commented that rocket launchers play TOO significant of a role in the game play. It was suggested that maybe they should only be available on a recruit setting.
-*- Kevin's opinion on the Rocket Launchers - If necessary we can always design an op with rules banning the use of such Rocket Launchers if we feel it necessary for the balance of an h2h op.
So in summary, Ammo is the critical component and we request that it be set to full. Morale is a secondary item of consideration. The rocket launchers can be worked with from a rules standpoint.
We don't think anything else needs to be adjusted. The maps are great, the unit counts and composition are just fine and workable, and the hit/kill ratios seem to be good (*edit - see question below).
So taking all the above into consideration, let me reemphasize again that h2h play looks for balance. I realize the Ammo request runs contrary to historical design but we really need the balance to have the flexibility in design and to give the Germans a shot at assaulting and winning. This is only a request for the h2h submod and should have no impact on the core mod.
I've told you on many an occassion that both SOC and SDK are fantastic mods and I really appreciate all the time and talent that went into their creation. I do hope you take our h2h requests into consideration.
*Edit - question on SDK - it seems that the Germans are not as effective in SDK as they are in SOC. Is there a reason for this? Did you update or improve something for the Germans in SOC that you have not gone back to address in SDK yet?
Hi Pzt_Kevin,
Some remarks on the points you made:
1. Ammo
From what I understand, this is the one thing that Pzjager fundamentally objects to for historical reasons (for SOC, I'd have to agree with him).
But, changing ammo levels is one of things you can very easily do yourself. The only thing you need is QClone and Excel. You can
2. Morale
As mentioned in Pzjager's and my own previous replies, morale is just a "by-product" of experience. High experience levels automatically lead to high morale (try it out). This said, changing EL/ML in the teams.adb file is also pretty straightforward (again using QClone). IMO, the difficulty is more in getting a right mix between different units and different sides.
3. Rocket Artillery
I agree with you here. However, with the house rule we use, we try to keep the historical lethality of heavy artillery while at the same time trying to prevent 'gamey' tactics when an opponent is forced to deploy in a small, relatively open area when attacking.
So, in our H2H games, the use of heavy artillery (on and off-board) is only permitted after 5 minutes (we play 15-minute battles). This has the added advantage that the non-heavy tubes (50mm f.i.) still have an advantage over the heavy ones in that they can be used immediately.
You can do f.i. a percentage increase of the number of clips carried in the soldiers.adb file. Beware however that this impacts weight and thus fatigue and speed (IIRC, can anybody confirm?). Alternatively, you could increase the number of rounds per clip in the weapons.adb file. I don't think this impacts weight (not sure), but it impacts your number of clip reloads.
1. If someone wants to fight the HISTORICAL settings and create custom ops based upon these historical settings, they can fight the standard mod. But I think we're trying to provide input on a true h2h SUBMOD. I completely respect pj's desires to maintain the historical aspects of the mod and would not even make the above suggestions to the core standard mod. But since he's asking for how he should set the h2h SUBMOD for us multiplayers I provided the input I did.
2. Roel I'm going under the assumption that you fight your h2h battles with a room mate or buddy and can readily make the edits that you suggest bewteen the 2 PC's involved. In my case I'm talking about Wars involving 20-40 peaple at a time and engagements setup with a community friend on a random basis. To undertake the suggestions that you are making and then entrust that your opponents have made the same ones would lead to a lot of crashes due to inconsistencies in versions. I think we need a common H2H SUBMOD to insure consistency and infallibility.
I don't think the AMMO request is unreasonable because Historical h2h play can still be conducted using the base mod. But imho, for the majority of the h2h players looking for some balance, an ammo increase is a reasonable request to make to bring the necessary balance for h2h play.
As it stands today with the current H2H Submod, I don't feel confident that a good balanced custom op can be created for use in a war and a battle between friends. But by increasing the ammo level you will give us a lot of flexibility in custom op design.
Regardless, I will respect whatever PJ decides on.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
.
) because defending Axis infantry teams were systematically being outshot and overrun by Soviet infantry (human wave style 
).
)
