[Profetkaninen]

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:

- Can troops "base" condition such as morale, fatigue and ammo levels be changed according to strategic events?
- Is it possible to place map in a more grid/network like structure where the distance and connection type (road swamp etc) between every map (even if they are not directly linked) is known?
- Would it be possible to introduce artillery units and HQ units that effects troops base conditions on maps within thier range?
- Could a point system for using troops at a battle, that was used in CC2, be applied to CC5?
- Is it possible to mod how much space an attacking unit takes up when entering a map?
- Could a map be entered from two or more sides?
- Could two or three (friendly) battle groups enter a map at the same time and units be drawn from both when setting up the battle (still 16 units on map though)?

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.

[papa_whisky]

I agree the strat level should be as good as a hex based game. I think units should be able to be stacked, with a maximum, that increases the size and content of the force pool. Off screen artillery should be provided by arty units within range, yes to command units, yes to movement hindrance. I personally would like to see company sized units as once you have potentially mixed it with other company sized units then you get a sensible force pool for the map. Specialist units such as engineers, and anti-tank units, perhaps should be platoon sized.

[Tejszd]

Those two Atomic series of games were great! Still have them on my hard drive....

[mooxe]

I was playing V4V Velikie Luki in my off time in Afghanistan this year and last.

I wonder now if the strategic phase needs to be changed at all. The classic versions offer weather, support, supply, reinforcements and movement in the strategic phase. Those options are very rudementry but they all effect each battle. I would say the strategic phase should not change at all. You can make decisions quickly right now, and they all boil down to a chess game. Moving to map X to block BG 5. Attacking map Z to cut of BG at map Y. Its all about moving forward and cutting off your opponents supply so thier close combat effectiveness dwindles.

They are great ideas though and some would be great. Also try and think of reverse strategic effects, like when a battle goes bad for you, other than losses, maybe some road vls lost or disbandment, how could it effect the overall scene more? But I can't help but think... If more work is done implementing strategic features, would it take away from the main focus of close combat? Could it become more of a turn based strategy rather than real time strategy game?

[Profetkaninen]

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.