I know it is late, but you might want to check that again Firefox.
If it is GTC's multiplayer that is messin with ya, I read on the Slitherene site, that you may need to move closer to their server in England. But if you do that, you wont be able to wear your burka. Or is that in France, I forget.
Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 6:34 pm Post subject: Re: Angriff
Patch 1.02 for GTC is available. I think (and I hope) there are no more excuses to continue the mod now.
I will begin a new thread about Angriff! in the GTC section.
PJ I remember also had a way to address this for his Stalingrad mods besides the smaller maps, don't recall exactly what he did.
Hi DJ,
Yeah, PJ and Selhexe were talking about that on one of the OLD Stalingrad post/topics long ago and PJ posted how he did it, it was when PJ went ballistic over Selhexe making that vetmod for DK. Digging up that topic should find the answer.
Werf
I am just guessing, but me thinks it probably had to do with zombies. I myself have done a thing or two with zombies, and yes with zombies, map size is a non-issue.
Patch 1.02 for GTC is available. I think (and I hope) there are no more excuses to continue the mod now.
I will begin a new thread about Angriff! in the GTC section.
Now perhaps you can delete the multiplayer problem from the equation but you should value the IA problem with big maps.
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:34 am Post subject: Re: Angriff
Yes Manoi, small maps such as those in CC4 really do not allow proper tactics. I totally agree with your decision to go on with larger maps!
On pure multiplayer perspective, I think GJS had the best map sizes, but I agree with Firefox that large maps make playing against the AI even more boring. But as I always say, playing CC against AI is just a waste of time. Everyone should play multiplayer if possible!
Even if people cannot commit to long-lasting operations, I think playing single battles is still pretty good. And assuming we had a stable game (hopefully with the latest patch) with a lot of balanced single battles created by players, reviving the ladder (a la Tournament House) in this case would be pretty cool.
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 3:26 pm Post subject: Re: Angriff
That Cap de la Hague map is actually pretty good I think in terms of size.
The problem with small maps when playing against a human opponent is that, it limits you a lot (as the attacker) due to not having much choice in terms of attack direction. Thus, the defender can basically deploy whatever he has on one spot. Whereas, in medium to large maps the attacker can follow a less obvious attack route combined with feint attacks. Of course this involves a little bit of gambling and opponent skill assessment sometimes, but that's the fun of it.
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 4:28 pm Post subject: Re: Angriff
Nomada, it's you (you = the human player) that for the fun sometimes flank the enemy (the enemy IA in single player or a Human player in multiplayer). Medium map size (it's better medium-small than medium-big) it's the compromise (I think good) between multiplayer players needs and single player players (like me) needs.
the problem is to find a compromise between single and multiplayer.
To begin with, me thinks you should re-state the problem as follows:
To find a compromise between single and multi-battle. Solve that issue first.
Multi-battles (even on the same map) and in the context of an operation or a grand campaign are in direct opposition to single-battles (on the same map) as it relates to map sizes and the number and placement of VLs on the corresponding maps.
With CCMT, the campaigns and operations were eliminated, therefore this problem was solved.
With a campaign game format, you could just simply eliminate the single-battles. One tab and its corresponding entries would be removed. Players can still design operations that involve fewer and fewer maps, but they can never quite get to a single map - single battle. The minimum maps in an operation could be 3 or perhaps 2, as enforced by the system.
There is still the issue of single player vs. multi player. But it has far fewer issues than the one mentioned above.
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:14 am Post subject: Re: Angriff
One other point regarding single battle vs multi battle.
Atomic must have understood this problem. After all, its is really a no brainer. Lets see, I have this map. In one case I just want to fight a single (one) battle, and in the other case I want this map to support many battles. So, since I want to use the map for many battles, I probably need to make it larger.
But, when I want to make any map larger (even for scaling purposes), I may need to use more VLs on the larger map. So, Atomic tried to partially resolve this issue by creating major and minor VLs. Some VLs are worth more victory points than others. For instance, in CCMT, the VLs are worth the same amount of victory points.
It is the fixed number of teams and VLs, that in the end put real limitations on the size of each and every map. Why, because the area of map can increase exponentially. And the number of teams and the number of VLs are NOT increasing in an exponential way.
12x12 = small map = 144 square deployment tiles - 15 teams - 16 victory locations
16x16 = medium map = 256 tiles - 15 teams - 16 victory locations
20x20 = large map = 400 tiles - 15 teams - 16 victory locations
As the maps increase in size, they have less value when utilized for a single battle, but perhaps more value when utilized for many battles, except for the one glaring dichotomy presented above.
And to boil all tactics to 2 distinct types: 1. Concentration of force(this includes flanking), and 2. Mutual support. Me thinks you could say these 2 tactics, are again in opposition to one other as it relates to map size or area.
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 10:04 am Post subject: Re: Angriff
So as it turns out, especially in the context of tactics; you can get an exponential increase in the number of VLs that is roughly correlated to map size.
16 is the maximum number of VLs, but you can manually enforce a maximum value for each map size as follows;
12x12 = small map = 144 square deployment tiles - 15 teams - 2 victory locations
16x16 = medium map = 256 tiles - 15 teams - 4 victory locations
20x20 = large map = 400 tiles - 15 teams - 8 victory locations
I implemented basically this arrangement with my own map collections. But, when you look at this situation and relate it to the two tactics (concentration of force, and mutual support), is it any wonder when map sizes increase that the AI becomes less and less capable.
Of course, the AI is further handicapped by the fact that it probably has no memory (short or long term). So, imagine playing against another human player with this disability.
Over time, I have listened to many players express the benefits of movement; usually flanking, as an essential ingredient for game play. What I discovered was the players were really expressing the idea of a flank march, not simply flanking an enemy unit. There can be a considerable amount of difference.
So, for any map to allow, one side or another to take all or most of its force and flank march it in a way where they arrive at a 90 degree angle to the tangent that would represent the defenders battle "line", would require another substantial increase in map size.
Me thinks these players have a necessity to win the battles that they play against the AI, so large maps are their favorite, since movement tactics, like marching most of your force to a flank, are somewhat simple in nature. In conclusion, these players publicly disdain the AI.
Perhaps this kind of movement should be reserved for the strategic layer.
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!