Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:47 pm Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement?
Got to agree with Brake here. Some of the deployment zones are basically Murder Holes for the attackers.
Perhaps a gentleman's agreement for defender unit placement*** might help - along with a time limit for defensive artillery/mortar attacks (+1 or +2 minutes).
As stated previously, the attackers are meant to have the element of surprise!
#H
*** (maybe a restricted zone around the attacker deployment zone, in which the defender cannot place units)
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:26 pm Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement?
Quote:
Got to agree with Brake here. Some of the deployment zones are basically Murder Holes for the attackers
Yeh, and how does that correspond with reality? Should all attack entry positions be favrable to the attacker?
Do you believe that things in real life is always a meeting and fair situation? What (competent) commander would want to enter a fight where his odds is so poor?
That’s what’s the beauty in CC4-CC5 strategy level, IE a competent commander don’t enter a map at an to poor place, he select a entry that is so good as possible that also corresponds to his BG relative strength and the general goals…
Quote:
Perhaps a gentleman's agreement for defender unit placement*** might help - along with a time limit for defensive artillery/mortar attacks (+1 or +2 minutes).
This is like golf, with a handicap system. Yeh that can work for them who are not that grate at attacking.
IF what you and Brake say is in general true, then how come that we (the CC5 players) can play one CC5 GC after another as attacker and still win? Think about that..
We can argue all day, but there’s no need as the proof of what I say is in our actual played GCs.
Here are some AAR where you will fined a ton of example that proves you wrong. ::
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:55 pm Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement?
Eh? 'Prove me wrong?'
Some of the attacking zones ARE murder holes for attackers. CORRECT.
Gentlemans agreements 'might' be an option to those players that do not like the small size of the attacking area. Note that it an agreement between TWO players - and both sides may end up attacking. CORRECT.
You seem to be adding your own commentary!?!
If you're talking about real life, how about the fact that ALL attacking units start on the battlefield at the same time.
No advance scouts on the map to probe strength before 'commiting' the full force. You effectively commit the full force every time.
There is frequently nowhere to hide and, of course, no way to introduce a second wave of troops in CC5.
It IS up to the attacker to choose the attack point in this game, which is fair enough. That was never the issue from my point of view.
Some people may choose a gentleman's agreement (note 'choose') and it would have to be agreed by 'both' sides. Remember, both sides can end up attacking. Hardly a handicap if its agreed between two players and it could potentially stay in play for all games they play as either side 'If it suits them'.
it was a 'suggestion' and is up to the players playing a particular game, not a third party to say 'NO' to them.
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:14 pm Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement?
AT Stalky make's the argument that if CCV deployment is a disadvantage (death box) to the attacker then why does the attacker usually win. The answer is strength ratio. If you make the attacker strong enough he can defeat an enemy no matter the deployment style.
My argument is about deployment in the map itself. Not the strat layer.
In CC3 the attacker has some options in the initial attack. In CCV the attacker has the option of going left of the barn or right of the barn.
CCIV-V map deployment is a small box or corner. Sure a battle could start that way. We want that as an option. Many battles began with a group moving down a road into a corner of a town. Yes. Do you want every battle to start that way? For me. No. Why? Because makes the beginning of every battle too predictable even if your force and strength vary, you still start every battle pretty much the same way. The defender is not suprised by the attack in the least bit, he knows where you are and where you have to go in order to take the objectives.
CCIII has the attacker start at an end in a long edge of map deployment when attacking. The defender has the great majority of territory. I see it as a better type of CC map deployment because it gives the attacker some more room to deploy/hide and more tactical options for his initial attack. This arrangement opens tactical variety to each battle. The defender does not know exactly where or how the attacker will make his advance.The defender has to be flexible and adapt to any situation the assault brings.
Ok, so I prefer CC3's initial map deployment style to CCIV-V's style. Can it be taken another step even better? I think so. This idea might be better than both CC3 and CCIV-V. Use a hex grid. Make beautiful, large CC maps in a uniform hex size. When attacking into a new enemy map the deployment can be CC3 like while still using a strat layer.
Any commander's greatest tactical weapon is surprise.
CCIV-V's small box design actually takes away an attackers inititive and suprise' by giving away the attackers location before the battle even begins. "We are all familiar with the term, finding the enemy is half the battle." That what I want out of a CC game a "realistic battle" that gives the player the room to utilize all the classic tactics of war.
hexdeploymentCC6.jpg
Description:
Filesize:
14.43 KB
Viewed:
10266 Time(s)
Close Combat's most infamous SOB
Last edited by US_Brake on Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:06 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:17 pm Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement?
Are all specific entry boxes of the same size -when you, regardless of side and regardless of battlegroup type, enter a defended map?
As if the map Caen in GJS, is defended by a German BG and the allied BG enters from Colombelles, would the entry box be the same size if it was a German BG entering from Colombelles?
Gentlemans agreements 'might' be an option to those players that do not like the small size of the attacking area. Note that it an agreement between TWO players - and both sides may end up attacking. CORRECT.
Some people may choose a gentleman's agreement (note 'choose') and it would have to be agreed by 'both' sides. Remember, both sides can end up attacking. Hardly a handicap if its agreed between two players and it could potentially stay in play for all games they play as either side 'If it suits them'.
Calli it what you whant mate.
Well, CC5 and its mods are all set up where ONE side hold the ENTIRE strat map. The ONLY way the attacker can win is by.... attacking and gaining ground.. So the attack/defend ratio in a GC is not the same for both sides.. Thus such rules benefits the operational attacker more then the defender..................
Look here:
REG CC5 US attack, germans holds the entire strat map and mostly defend..
GJS UK attack, germans holds the entire strat map and mostly defend..
Bloody Omaha US attack, germans holds the strat entire map and mostly defend..
Karelia USSR attacks Fins holds the entire strat map and mostly defend..
Tali USSR attacks Fins holds the entire strat map and mostly defend..
Winterwar USSR attacks Fins holds the strat entire map and mostly defend..
Ardennes Offensive GE attacks and allied holds the entire strat map and mostly defend..
Battle of Berlin, the german commander Hostilian attacks and USSR are confused J.Kidding..
Etc etc etc...
AT Stalky make's the argument that if CCV deployment is a disadvantage (death box) to the attacker then why does the attacker usually win. The answer is strength ratio. If you make the attacker strong enough he can defeat an enemy no matter the deployment style.
Yes.
And that makes the attacker think before he enter a map. What is the strength ratio and how does the map look.
And this is realistic; All else equal, the defender is the stronger. So we shall not make things equal, we shall stack the odds at our side and attack where we are strong, enemy is week and the map allows for us to exploit the asymmetry.
And IMO; CC5 models all this rather well.
This is just like real life.
A real operation contains different units with different characteristics, many units optimized for defence (or low cost units as an economist would say). And some more heavy units up to any task, but not used in a static defensive position where there strength would be wasted.. If one try to use a low quality infantry BG to assault into a week position at a map against a strong enemy what happened in such situations in real life? Yeh, there u have the same outcome as in CC5... So is the CC5 realitic outcomes a problem?
In CC5 we have many BGs, composed as in real life. And one must take the characteristics of the BG into account before deploying it, or it will be like real life, a disaster.
I like the map composition in a well made strat map in CC5, where the real roads and natural hinders are a part of the design.
Though I fined your attached idea interesting US_,
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:08 pm Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement?
The concept of the BG entry-part, should be modified, perhaps implementing the ideas posted in this thread?
Maybe a future CC should implement BG experience / BG CO experience / BG CO style / BG morale / BG Speed / BG combat readiness and so forth, on the strategic map, calculating both the size and shape of an entry-box/area?
For instance on a map like Port En Bessin in CC5 Gold-Juno-Sword, a German BG has moved into the map, creating the imaged sandbox.
What if the German BG experience was low, and the UK BG defending the map, had a high morale? Should that influence the shape and size of how the BG would move into a map?
That error occurs in CC4 and 5 when entering BG VL covers the area that is available to the defending BG so the exe puts the defensive zone off to a corner.
LSA tries to address the deployment zone issues between the strat layer and the battle map with the following changes;
You can have 2 connections between maps instead of 1
- If the attacker held both VL’s on the adjoining map they would get 2 entry areas giving them a larger deployment area and making the defender have to guess where the main effort will come from
You can have/move 2 BG’s onto a map; 1 frontline and 1 reserve
- When moving 2 BG’s onto a map the 1 moved as attacker gets to deploy the larger force while the 2nd could deploy a small force thus making the defender guess which BG/Entry VL the main effort will come from
It's just too be bad that there is still some bugs in the game and that the old CC5/WAR/TLD data has to be changed to work under LSA.
Im gonna get that game at some point. Sounds like progress.
What if the German BG experience was low, and the UK BG defending the map, had a high morale? Should that influence the shape and size of how the BG would move into a map?
Maybe a future CC should implement BG experience / BG CO experience / BG CO style / BG morale / BG Speed / BG combat readiness and so forth, on the strategic map, calculating both the size and shape of an entry-box/area?
Why should a physical entry size (big differance in size) be subject of any of the mentioned quality’s?
If the strength ratios between the combatants are like you said, then those quality differences should show em self explicitly in the tactical game.
And from 12 years of experience playing CC5, I do believe that the quality’s mentioned show them self almost perfectly in game..
Men, it’s well known that if we compared attacking with defending the later are less demanding. Any officer or NCO can agree to that as well as any veteran CC player.
Don’t confuse that with a game mechanics defect.
I don’t oppose a handicap system, where one can give one side a needed benefit, but I would not suggest a repair of something that is not broken.
These are two different things, entirely.
/S
Last edited by AT_Stalky on Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:29 pm Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement?
Dear Mr Stalky
In case you didnt understand my last post (obvious you didnt) it was to show that the two comments I made in my first post, that you obviously had an issue with, were in fact 'correct'.
So you now agree with me? Bit of a flip flopping of your opinion...
The rest of your last post is a bit of a waste of time as you are using a straw man argument to 'win' a discussion on an internet forum (ie, misrepresenting 'my' position). LOL.
Obviously one side is mainly attacking. However, have you thought (obviously I need to explain) that the same two players could....."swap sides" for their next GC! WOW.
You seem to think that I am trying to make 'you and your friends' do something you dont want to. You do know it's a forum, not a PM? If you dont want to use it, dont use it.
Quote:
Horses for courses and courses for horses.
Yeh, teach me the basic of CC5 please..
Do you know what horses for courses means?
Oh and I got CC5 when it came out too... Its not as big a deal as you think.
Anyway. Off on hols for a long weekend. Have a good one!
Obviously one side is mainly attacking. However, have you thought (obviously I need to explain) that the same two players could....."swap sides" for their next GC!
You know.. its standard practice since more than 10 years ago …
The rest of your last post is a bit of a waste of time as you are using a straw man argument to 'win' a discussion on an internet forum
Or what are you fishing for?
We are trying to debate the entry box here, If you have anything to add, then do so. But don’t expect that people here should just agree with you just because you are, YOU…
If you know what I mean.. And I do belive YOU do.
If you want to rant and just beeing a flame bait, go to the train wreck thread and make some friends there, and don’t litter this thread...
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:32 pm Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement?
Quote:
Why should a physical entry size (big differance in size) be subject of any of the mentioned quality’s?
Well, simply in order to try and simulate the present properties of a specific BG. Properties having been developed throughout the Campaign/Operation, brining an entry-style to the specific BG. Sort of a roleplay-idea, for battlegroups.
For instance when a German BG has been constantly attacking and fighting its way successfully through several maps, using tactical pincer movements in doing so, in order to reach the last map-objective, being Port En Bessin, then the entry box would perhaps look like the image, where it would have two entry points; one in the north and one further south?
Also, a green BG, never having seen combat, would perhaps use the normal CC5-entry, until it had developed a style of its own?
So in a future CC game, some BGs would have so called bonus-entries from start, due to BG-style already historical developed, while others would have had to develop their style from scratch.
German entry points - bolder pincer and its opposite - safety-first.jpg
Description:
Filesize:
283.59 KB
Viewed:
10467 Time(s)
Last edited by CC_CO on Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:09 pm Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement?
What you argue I agree with in principle. The problem may be that the balance of the grand campaign may be negatively affected. We know from years of game play that the CC5 GC entry mechanics works. The size works, the single box works.. for most of us..
When some has made a pincer as you describe, the attacker do get an advantage in CC5 to, they can chose what place to enter..
What concerns me is the so fine balance between attacker and defender that Atomic successfully model in CC5. Played out over a series of continues battles it does mimic the real outcomes.
If its to be changed like you suggest, and that’s how it now work in LSA, then one would probably need to resize the TWO entry boxes (smaller), so there’s and advantage, though not so grate it tilts the advantage for the attacker in a significant way, but just so much..
For this reason, it would be interesting to test LSA with a quality GC like GJS, and see what it does to the fine balance…
But, then there’s always the quality of the game it self, LSA been on the market now for 21 month, and still its unplayable… We see what the latest patch fixes (and mess up)…
Im tuned into the LSA bug report thread..
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:22 pm Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement?
Yes, true, it would have to be analysed and calculated, in detail, in order to see if this role-play idea, could work.
Still interesting though, having BGs developing different styles of entering a map. Not to mention how these would perform when facing an opponent with another style. Like for instance a BG having developed a pincer style, attacking a map where the defender had developed a delayer style.
Well, it would be some puzzle to code, and perhaps even to play
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:26 pm Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement?
Yeh
But then when one think about it. Why cant it be a user choice in the game set up, how hard can it be to have a a menue of the alternative and implement em in the game?
Classic CC5 or user specified game style (se below): CC5/User-specified
Allow multiple entry points: Yes/No
Size of entry boxes for allied: Large/Medium/Small
Size of entry boxes for Germans: Large/Medium/Small
Timer setting: (any minute)
A CC-developer that listen to the suggestions given: NO/NO
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:35 pm Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement?
That sounds like a menu that would work. But doing the actual coding of the mechanics with the BGs and the strat and tac-map-layer, will probably be difficult.
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:38 am Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement?
In LSA multiple entry points are determined by the user deciding to move 1 or 2 BG's onto a map or not.
A couple of the other items you mention are/were on the wishlist but never got to the development list;
- entry box size based on BG speed for a meeting engagement
- user enter able game time
- random/variable end time
But then when one think about it. Why cant it be a user choice in the game set up, how hard can it be to have a a menue of the alternative and implement em in the game?
Classic CC5 or user specified game style (se below): CC5/User-specified
Allow multiple entry points: Yes/No
Size of entry boxes for allied: Large/Medium/Small
Size of entry boxes for Germans: Large/Medium/Small
Timer setting: (any minute)
A CC-developer that listen to the suggestions given: NO/NO
Size of entry boxes for allied: Large/Medium/Small
In all seriousness this is a fantastic solution AT Stalky! You have discovered a way to make all the post CC3 games better imo. They should patch all the Matrix versions with this ASAP. If they had this player option for CCIV I would have played it and become a much bigger fan of the later in the series.
Now for some sarcasm:
Looking back on the years, I would have been better off as a Close Combat player, if I had wanted to be a general or colonel instead of the original games squad leader role. Then I would have received satisfaction from being a genius strategy map tactician who cleverly chooses the best units & supply, while planning attacks on the enemy at the right place from a large map that covered hundreds of kilometers. After coming down from that high, I could relish the genius game design of starting every new battle from a tiny box that I break out from with a momentum and skill that leaves my opponent in awe.
All I want out of a CC game is a good tactical h2h battle with historic units and nice maps/sound and a good opponent that gives it 100%. All the other crap is just gimmicks.
All I want out of a CC game is a good tactical h2h battle with historic units and nice maps/sound and a good opponent that gives it 100%. All the other crap is just gimmicks.
Hmmm, considering your preferences, I know the perfect game for you: Close Combat 3..
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!
