Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 1:02 pm Post subject: Leadership questions
I am relatively new to this game, and wondered if anybody has information about the leadership system in CCV.
I have been wondering about a number of things:
1. The rifle squads and tanks have leaders as well. Will a command team affect the other teams differently from a rifle squad with a leader of the same rank. Will placing a bazooka teame next to a rifle team with a good leader have the same effect as placing the bazooka next to a command team. Can I use Rifle or BAR teams with good leaders as leader team to increase firepower?
2. The teams screen seems to imply a company organized two rifle platoons and one heavy weapons platoon. And the CO of 1st platoon is also CO for the company. Does this affect game play in any way? Is there any point to remember during play what rifle teams belongs to which Command squad?
Is it possible to read thisinformation out of the data for the game? Or is it embedded into the program itself? Is it simple to make test scenarios for this kind of issues?
Mostly the effects of command teams, is morale. If a rifle team gets cut off, they begin to panic and surrender. Yes you can use rifle and BAR teams in the place of command teams, but they won't have the high morale and experience the command teams do. So far I have not seen any problems with mixing troops of different platoons. Lastly the only possible way of seeing te effects of this is to hold the spacebar during a battle to see morale and who goes with what.
I always assumed they did the company formations purely for style, and not function. I've never paid attention to them, and have not had any issues. That said, it is possible there is some kind of modifier in play.
Thanks for your replays. I like to put of two platoons with HQ team and 3 BAR/Rifle teams each, and try to keep the platoons together as my core unit. But that is just for the feel of it, I do not know if it has any effect.
I also likes to play with two 80 mm mortars, and keep the two mortars together out of sight for indirect fire. I think keeping the third HQ squad close to the mortars help adding to mortar effect, but I am not sure. If needed I can leave the mortars alone and have three smaller rifle platoons instead.
Do you know if the effect of inderect fire depends on the spotter? Will a HQ squad or recon team in sight of the target give better results than an MG or bazooka?
Gaming experience is different because CC is a "Rush-adrenaline Game" and SP is a "Neatly Ordered Battle" game. I think The real and GOOD wargame is that of TBS (turn-based system). You can order command simultaneously in TBS Wargames, and it is impossible to command troops simultaneously in RTS (Real time system). Say, in RTS if you wanna seize a fortification using two squads, you have to first click the first squad and order it to move and assault the fort, then you will click the other squad to provide suppressing fire whilst the now-moving assault squad has been cut off to pieces (that mean you can't order unit simultaneously). In RTS Wargames, you tend to focus yourself on the unit you're controlling right now thus leaving the other units without up-to-date orders. In real-life, it is really absurd that A Platoon is attacking the flank whilst B Platoon is still standing watching their comrades fall down. All soldiers are LIFE. They don't wait another unit to accomplish their jobs before they carry out theirs. In TBS, this is realistically simulated. RTS tend to give you the so-called "Battle Thrill" thus you lose your attention to other units currently not under your mouse click. TBS Wargames give you a neat battle order. You have to pay attention to all units in TB Wargames.
BTW, I've never played SPWAW (Steel Panthers World at War), but the SP developers said that WinSPWW2 has more realism advances than WAW, but, that's just what I know.
Martin, I think you have to spent your time lot reading the WinSPWW2 game guide. Nearly all the game features are explained in it. If you have questions, just go to our forum.
Gaming experience is different because CC is a "Rush-adrenaline Game" and SP is a "Neatly Ordered Battle" game. I think The real and GOOD wargame is that of TBS (turn-based system). You can order command simultaneously in TBS Wargames, and it is impossible to command troops simultaneously in RTS (Real time system). Say, in RTS if you wanna seize a fortification using two squads, you have to first click the first squad and order it to move and assault the fort, then you will click the other squad to provide suppressing fire whilst the now-moving assault squad has been cut off to pieces (that mean you can't order unit simultaneously). In RTS Wargames, you tend to focus yourself on the unit you're controlling right now thus leaving the other units without up-to-date orders. In real-life, it is really absurd that A Platoon is attacking the flank whilst B Platoon is still standing watching their comrades fall down. All soldiers are LIFE. They don't wait another unit to accomplish their jobs before they carry out theirs. In TBS, this is realistically simulated. RTS tend to give you the so-called "Battle Thrill" thus you lose your attention to other units currently not under your mouse click. TBS Wargames give you a neat battle order. You have to pay attention to all units in TB Wargames.
BTW, I've never played SPWAW (Steel Panthers World at War), but the SP developers said that WinSPWW2 has more realism advances than WAW, but, that's just what I know.
Martin, I think you have to spent your time lot reading the WinSPWW2 game guide. Nearly all the game features are explained in it. If you have questions, just go to our forum.
In real battles...commanders don't have the luxury of 'stopping time' to organize and 'neatly issue orders'. Standar RTS games are click-fests...but CC is not one of those.
As for the problem with suppressing fire in a real time game like CC...why not just give order to the suppressing fire squad first, then order the assaulting squad to advance
For fire orders, using multiple unit sellect and the hotkey commands...you can order multiple units to move or fire simultaneously.
There are only 15 units to command at the most. Between numbering single or multiple teams and click-drag-select other multiple teams theres no problem issueing orders. Some people lose focus on other teams, sometimes alot of other teams, they lose. Thats part of learning how to play.
Comparing these games to real life is pretty absurd really. A turn based game gives the commander all the time in the world to play his next move, which IMO is the single biggest factor that makes TBS games the most unrealistic games in terms of commanding. The weapons and armour calculations etc etc may all be perfect making the actual battle sequence realistic which can also be said for Close Combat.
Can you really compare the two types of games? No. If you want the most realistic command pick Close Combat. If you want realistic attributes for soldiers and vehicles, pick either.
Like squadleader says... its not a click fest. I compare this game to chess.
Join Discord for technical support and online games.
I have been playing CC on the highest speed, and things do someties happen a bi fast, and it it sometimes difficult to focus at several things at the same time, but not overly so. I consider going to slower game speed t see how that is. But I guess it is a question about learning to master the speed as well. And even if one may disagree about how fast-paced the game should be, I feel it is an important aspect of the game that there is a certain pressure on time, and that decisions needs to be taken under pressure. Once you have got unlimited time for thinking, it is a different game.
In addition I do feel that the TBS games lack realism in one important way: Things that are supposed to happen at the same time don't. If you move one unit the max distance, and it takes heavy fire from 10 enemy units in the last hex, you can abort the attack and move your other units one whole turns value of moves in a different direction. You could not have done that in the real life, because it was not until the end of the turn that your first unit detected all the enemy units.
And the reaction fire works in a way so that either the defending units must be allowed to fire almost limitless amounts of reaction fire, or if the reaction fire is very limited, you can trick the defender to expend their shots on low value, low probability targets and not move in the real attack until the defenders have quit shooting.
I know there are games out there that are turn based, but where you first plot all the moves, and then they are resolved simultaneously: have never played such games, except a few attempts on Diplomacy board game), but it seems to be the way to make turn based games realistic.
No, no, no...
This is not a matter of stopping time nor neatly issuing orders. This is about:
"Simultaneously order different units with different order issues at the same time"
Well, I think (just what I think ) you haven't played much TBS games, no?
What I mean above is different with what you said to just simply select multiple units and order them to fire. This is absolutely nothing to do with the problem, as it just order a "bunch of soldiers" with the "same order" or the "same target". All games (maybe) can do this, of course...
And one more thing: Just like what I've said, when you are in the heat of battle, you will tend to concentrate on just one unit you are controlling (or maybe a bunch of units) leaving the other not in recent command. Say, you have two units, if the unit you're controlling is being ambushed, and suffer some casualty, you will get them to cover or maybe ordering them to counter-fire the attacker, while the other unit is being ambushed too at the same time, what would you do? Maybe (just maybe), if CC support such a "paused" game, you would be able to control these units simultaneously. But, one thing to notice, a "paused" game is just another representation of TBS Wargames.
Oh, yes, Squad Leader, your mod of BoS45 is "such an outstanding MOD to represent our Motherland battle against the Invaders" I hope this mod will bring the history of our nation to the eyes of the world, more specially Grognards!
I played TBS games...and 'true' cardboard and dice wargames when I was younger.
The micromanagement killed the fun for me...with CC...the engine takes care of the micromanagement chores.
Like mooxe said, with only 15 units to command...it's not too complicated to issue multiple orders
You also forget that the individual soldier AI (and squad AI) of CC is quite competent...your units will fire at the enemy, duck for cover, find better cover etc on their own. Squads out of the control sphere of command teams will also advance/move by themselves when left alone too long without orders.
Edit: The scenario you mentioned with one unit being ambushed while a second one is also ambushed...in CC the AI will usually take care of the problem...unless your tactics isn't sound (sending squads without covering fire fire, forgetting to use smoke etc)
The fact that you have to micromanage every order in TBS games is actually unrealistic...no?
From my guess...you don't really play CC that much...you're more of a TBS wargame grognard? Maybe it was BoS45 (thanks for the support, BTW) that brought you to CCS? *just a guess*
Combat Mission's hybrid system of TBS and RTS was great for some players...but for me the micromanagement is just too much of a chore...the simplicity of the CC gameplay is still more to my liking. Different strokes for different folks I guess
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!
