Close Combat Series :: View topic - WAR, review and observations

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Wacht am Rhein

#1: WAR, review and observations Author: Uberdave, Location: Kansas, USA

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:51 pm
—
My review of WAR, v 4.50.15b. Thoughts, feelings, suggestions, questions, etc...as well as my own nit-picks. ;)

Overall, I want to say how awesome of a job the developers did, as CC4 was always the 'weakest link' in the classic CC series (IMO). WAR has changed all that and brought the game up to par not only with classic CC5, but with several enhancements to the game engine. The Ardennes offensive is a challenging campaign to historically depict in CC, as it is very armor and vehicle intensive, contrary to CC's original design as an infantry simulation.

Played the GC vs German AI. Hardest settings, 15 min battles, FM on. I specifically beefed up the German BGs to make them as strong as possible. Unfortunately, CC's AI still has issues with being aggressive and using sensible tactics (hence the popularity of 'Vetmods' and the modding community!). My American defenders forced at least two German BGs to disband on the very first turn of fighting. I played the first 7 days of the GC, then quit, as I was simply defending the same starting maps over and over against declining German strength. After you defend the same map 5+ times, it gets a little boring. It was clear the AI Germans had no chance. I forced German BGs to disband on 15+ occasions. KG Peiper was the only German BG to force me off a map, and did so twice. I haven't played VetBob or the Stock Mod yet, but there could clearly be some tweaks to the AI and the GC to make it more challenging as the Americans...such as weaker US BGs, more aggressive German commanders (Knittel, Bayer and Von Fallois literally would not attack me or advance in several battles on the same map), delayed reinforcements for US, etc. Overall, the GC started out strong and interesting, but became mediocre and boring after the first 3-4 days.

Pros:
-The strat map! Much more playable than classic CC4
-Some of the weapon pics were updated
-Enhanced AI/SAI
-BIGGER maps! One of my chief complaints of classic CC4 was the dull white, cramped/claustrophobic feeling the maps had...way too small.
-Medals are larger and crisper looking
-The 'flaming' graphics on destroyed tanks / vehicles that persist for a while (was this an elements data modification?)
-Ability to create own BG formations from FPool (not in classic CC4, where they were 'locked')
-Points depict value of units for strength comparisons
-Armor was relatively balanced without insane amounts of super tanks available

Cons:
-Large, ugly fonts for 'first platoon', 'speed', 'supply', etc
-Large, ugly fonts for map sector, units, BG occupying a sector, etc
-Remove/Rename buttons look old and generic
-Main, Next, Soldier, View Map, Reinforce, etc...buttons and tabs are ugly and hard to see
-FPool listing on left side of BG screen often looks disordered
-Battle clock letters are yellow instead of white (?)
-German text is reddish instead of grayish on some screens (?)
-Some vehicles were ugly; mostly US versions, like the M4s and the Stuart. Modding community has many better options.
-Some weapon sounds were duplicated. In some cases they were old (CC2/CC3) sounds that don't lend to realism.
-Some Germans spoke accented English ("I cant take any more!"), even with 'native language' option checked
-Mortars are way over-powered in this game. I took out guns and halftracks with three or less shots. Infantry could be bulls-eyed at 500m. Mortar teams routinely amassed 40-50 infantry kills, and 2-3 guns/HTs EACH after only three or four battles.
-Tank / vehicle reaction times are ridiculously fast...almost instantaneous. As soon as a unit reveals its position it is often reduced or destroyed within 5 seconds.

Questions:
-When is the earliest the American units may reinforce? I noticed some could not until Day 4. Is this accurate or a bug?
-M7 Garand Grenade launcher...not in TLD but in WAR and LSA....is this historical? Weren't they used at Normandy?
-What does the (gp) stand for in some Pzgrenadiere teams?
-No control over gun / tank crews STILL?
-Why is there a pinkish tint to the SS tanker shoulder rank straps?
-Fatigue and Cohesion are not detailed with BGs? Why was this excluded from WAR but not TLD or LSA?
-No REST options for BGs?
-Can non-HQ units with large green 'command influence' circles have a morale boosting effect on others similar to HQ units?
-Both sides can have the option to reinforce now?
-I noticed far more officers (Lts, Captains) among HQ units than in TLD or LSA. Is there a way to mod this in the data??
-I'm assuming that the off-board 'heavy artillery' support is of the 15cm/155mm variety?
-What is the difference between 'disbanding' and 'retreating in disarray'?
-Do disbanded (whether voluntary or not) BGs always reappear at a supply depot the following morning/day, or is there a percentage chance that they will each day?
-The 251/21 (rare HT) uses the 'MG15'...should be the MG151, as it was a 2cm AA cannon attached to a halftrack.

Suggestions:
-In one mod, the author placed all the available medals on the top of the soldier screen, so there was a reference to see how prestigious the award was. It would be nice to see this in the stock (re-released) versions.
-M8A1 'Scott' (never heard that nickname before)....had short-barreled 75mm...weapon pic shows long barreled version.
-Jagdpz.38(t) had "coax MG34" that could fire in a 360 degree arc....coaxial MG would be limited to frontal only.
-Really like the ROF on the 2cm gun (234/1 AC)...seems perfect rate for gameplay and sound (especially since the 2cm flak seems to be a difficult weapon to accurately mod).
-3-man 30 cal teams armed with M3 Grease Guns? My research suggests that they were only issues to tank and gun crews, not MG crews. They should have carbines or Garands instead. Same with US recon teams...strange combo of weapons (1 Garand, 1 GG, 1 Carbine).
-Smoke rounds fired by the 3" AT gun were abnormally small. Most (if not all) smoke rounds should have a large size to accurately depict their effectiveness.
-Power down the mortars!

Laughing

#2: Re: WAR, review and observations Author: Uberdave, Location: Kansas, USA

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:55 pm
—
I'd like to hear some of the old CC4 German voice cues again....the 'old man' telling soldiers to get back on their feet, lol.

#3: Re: WAR, review and observations Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2014 9:48 pm
—
Still a work in progress.
But it is more than playable.
The current list of changes is in the first post.

Stock Mod for WaR

#4: Re: WAR, review and observations Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:17 am
—
No control over gun / tank crews STILL?
- A gun/tank/vehicle crew has not been usable in CC games as it is believed to be more “historical” or prevents abuse in single games as people would run the crew around to discover the enemy as they did not try to save them to get them a new tank in a campaign. If you change a crew to a command team they can be given orders.

Why is there a pinkish tint to the SS tanker shoulder rank straps?
- I remember reading a lot of posts about that and it supposedly historical.
- EDIT: See this thread post #15 http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3224725

Fatigue and Cohesion

Rest options for BGs
- Both the above features were introduced in TLD and back ported to WAR for mod compatibility. They were not originally in WAR and when ported back the functionality was not enabled (most likely to keep the products different and keep the effort coding/testing lower).

#5: Re: WAR, review and observations Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:41 am
—
Base cohesion cost for movement
Base cohesion cost for combat
Base fatigue cost for movement
Base fatigue cost for combat
Is in Stock Mod
So is REST options for BGs?

squadleader_id is the resident expert on rank graphics.
If he has anything that can be used for WaR I'd gladly be willing to add it.

I see no reason to allow AT_Gun or Tanks crews the ability to roam the Map and fight.

The 'flaming' graphics on destroyed tanks / vehicles that persist for a while (was this an elements data modification?)
This was not in WaR it was however done by sapa and added to Stock Mod.

-Some vehicles were ugly; mostly US versions, like the M4s and the Stuart. Modding community has many better options.
-Some weapon sounds were duplicated. In some cases they were old (CC2/CC3) sounds that don't lend to realism.
Work in progress

-Power down the mortars!
Have done so,may or may not be to ones satisfaction though.

-Large, ugly fonts for 'first platoon', 'speed', 'supply', etc
-Large, ugly fonts for map sector, units, BG occupying a sector, etc
-Remove/Rename buttons look old and generic
-Main, Next, Soldier, View Map, Reinforce, etc...buttons and tabs are ugly and hard to see
-FPool listing on left side of BG screen often looks disordered
If you have ideas Ill entertain them.

#6: Re: WAR, review and observations Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 6:18 am
—
I got WAR last year. On a few occasions, I used it for Classic CCIV. The game seems fine to me. I never really got the sense I wanted to go on a beeg modding binge.

About halfway in this thread, I describe some mods I did make, mainly cosmetic.

CC4 Bulge Action

#7: Re: WAR, review and observations Author: Rodmorg, Location: Bournemouth

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:13 pm
—
Thanks UberDave for this info of WAR. This'd help with my topic I've just recently posted on the forum. Again, thanks!

#8: Re: WAR, review and observations Author: Uberdave, Location: Kansas, USA

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 5:59 pm
—
@ Michael - Awesome, I didn't realize your project was covering most of my gripes! I may check out the mod and post a review in a week or two. Having a good version of CC4 on the TLD/WAR platform has long been a goal of mine. As for the burning effect, I see it in my stock version of WAR. I just don't think they burn the entire battle (?). As for the ugly fonts, I thought of 'streamlining' all three titles by using the same text/font graphics for each. But that's another project.

@ Tesjzd - I knew about the command crew option, and the logic of crews not being controlled makes sense. I can see how they could be abused in H2H games. At the very least, it would be nice to see them hold a position once in a while and actually fire on the enemy. Pink waffenfarbe?! Omgs, that's hilarious. I never knew SS men wore pink. Laughing

Re: TLD functions not enabled in WAR....good to see Pltn-Mike has got that addressed!

#9: Re: WAR, review and observations Author: Uberdave, Location: Kansas, USA

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 6:13 pm
—
@ Stwa - Personally, I like large maps because of the deployment challenges it offers. :)

As for column rules, I think LSA did a good job of addressing that issue by not allowing a player to put vehicles in infantry columns and so forth.

"But, no matter how butt ugly the UI, it starts to "grow" on you over time. After each game, your brain stops registering the details and associates them as good because when you play the game, it receives a "fun" signal. It's kinda like the same signal your brain receives every time you eat a steak."

Lol, yes, I noticed that the UI is not bothering me as much as before.

#10: Re: WAR, review and observations Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:18 pm
—
As times gone by I feel the vehicles and the Camo applied to most of them to be horrible.

#11: Re: WAR, review and observations Author: vobbnobb,

Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 5:45 am
—
mg-15 was used on the Marder TD and is of axis Czech origin

#12: Re: WAR, review and observations Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 4:44 am
—
@Uberdave
If you back up your original bgroups text file first.
And then peg out all of the Commanders attributes (Columns J-M to read,5,-5,5,5)
You will get a more aggressive AI.

Those attributes as explained by Steve from the Matrix forums below............

Commander's qualities:
Aggression is how much the commander favors attack over defense. Higher aggression makes the AI more likely to attack, and more likely to make an all-out attack when it does so. Low aggression makes the AI more likely to defend, and more likely to use a limited attack when it does attack.

Eg. -5 Aggression = Be defensive in most situations and make only cautious attacks. Defensive posture with a small reserve (-5 Caution) simply means most of the teams are forward to meet the enemy at the start.

Caution is used to determine how many and what teams are assigned to the reserve group, if any. The higher the commander's caution, the more teams he will want in his reserve group .

Eg.If you want more AI teams on the front line fighting, give them a -5 caution. So -5 caution would cause the maximum number of teams to be committed at the start.

Charisma has a minor effect on the morale of teams at the start of the battle. It is usually not significant enough to notice unless you've fought a BG down to near exhaustion. It has no effect on tactics or attack/defense decisions.

Tactical plans are the basic strategies the AI uses -- frontal attack, flanking attack, double envelopment, etc. The worse the commander's tactics score the less of these he has to choose, and the simpler the plans are. Low tactics levels will result in piecemeal attack and defense, or simple 'line up and fight' strategies. This does not effect aggressiveness directly, just what plan is chosen once an 'attack' or 'defend' posture is decided upon.

Should you choose to try the Stock Mod out I also suggest opening the Campaign.txt file and edit the (diff-base support) option.
I would peg them out at all 10.
That setting is having the AI at Reqruit.
The AI does not assign support properly and 10 is the Max number that can be used, and even then the AI will assign support to BG's that will not see Battle on that turn.
It does however give provide slighty better odds depending on how many BG's the AI has on the strat map.
The changes were made for the next version but not currently in the one uploaded.
the option to edit however is.

You could also then edit the (Battle group 'base' battle plans:)Image:UO0014.jpg
And see what works for you.

Those 3 edit options should provide you with a better AI without having to edit the entire game.
Just be careful what you ask for.......Do you really want an Engineer BG going all out attack against your Armor BG?

And be sure you back up those 2 files first! before editing.

UO0014.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

132.2 KB

Viewed:

527 Time(s)

UO0013.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

180.99 KB

Viewed:

536 Time(s)

#13: Re: WAR, review and observations Author: Uberdave, Location: Kansas, USA

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 9:53 pm
—
Awesome, thanks for the tips on modding the data! I will get to Stock mod soon. Just started Meuse.

I knew about how to make the commanders more aggressive...my gripe was that the original game made them too weak. Razz

#14: Re: WAR, review and observations Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:40 pm
—
Upon further review.....

Ive edited the BGroups and the Campaign text to allow an all out assault by the AI .vs any type of BG's the Axis have.

I'm playing the "Counter Offensive" GC as the Axis.
All settings towards the AI.

While it is great against my weaker BG's or BG's with little or no Armor support it is however worse playing the AI when I have a Huge Armor advantage.

Why?

Because the AI is now worthlessly moving against me as if I have nothing to combat them especially on maps where they have to attack.
They will move their light vehicles forward with no regard to safety.
And troops will leave cover looking to advance to the next VL without caution.

On maps where they have the VL advantage they are still slow to move forward. Atleast on a few maps I've played.

I'm still testing.

#15: Re: WAR, review and observations Author: Uberdave, Location: Kansas, USA

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 4:29 pm
—
Good to hear. Keep me posted.

#16: Re: WAR, review and observations Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 3:58 pm
—
While I have so far enjoyed the new settings under the bgroups tab of the workbook.

I am now leaning towards doing multiple Teams based on difficulty as done with the VETBoB for WAR.

I think that may actually provide a better game play for those like me who play mostly against the AI.

And it still leaves the H2H player with normal Teams.

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Wacht am Rhein

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1