Close Combat Series :: View topic

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> Site Info

#1: Disband Rule Author: mikwarleo,

Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:56 pm
—
Many of us use the VL rule already in our games... Here's another rule mainly for GCs (but maybe OPs too) that I thought up a while back. People might like to use it in their games to offset the disband bug. Hope the rule gives your games a new aspect.

Disband Rule: When a cut off Battle Group is disbanded it is 'lost'.

By 'lost' I mean: All tanks, vehicles and guns in the Battle Group are considered destroyed/captured and cannot be deployed in future battles. All remaining infantry can be deployed however the unit should be kept in the rear where possible respecting the fact that it is considered to have lost 50-75% of it's infantry (50% voluntary disband, 75% forced disband, see game manual quote below).

By cut off I mean: Not directly connected to a supply depot on the strategy map (even if the unit is in supply). Thus, for example, the paratroopers in GJS Grand Campaign if they're disbanded while in supply but cut off from supply depos, they are lost. Contested ares are cut off unless the required road (supply/retreat path) is clearly in the control of friendly forces.

Reasons for the rule:

1. Primarily to address well known the disband bug.

The CC5 manual states (p32):

Quote:

If a Battle Group voluntarily disbands while it is out of supply, it loses all of its vehicles, and 50% of its infantry units are captured before they return to the group's supply depot.

If an unsupplied Battle Group is forced to disband involuntarily, because it is forced off a map, it loses all of its vehicles, then 75% of its infantry units are captured. This can be a crippling loss.

Crippling indeed except the rule never works. As most of us know, due to some bug what actually happens when you disband an unsupplied (cut off) unit is in fact basically nothing. They don't lose any units. So it's both unrealistic and against the developer's intentions and game rules.

I think this rule addresses the bug nicely. Also I think it is fitting that the unit is kept out of the action (at the player's discretion) as much as possible since it's the easiest way to adminstier the loss of 50-75% of the Battle Group's infantry. Most players will naturally keep a unit with no vehicles/tanks/guns in the rear anyhow preferring to use more capable units. I have included guns in the rule because it makes sense to me: how would the cut off disbanded battle group tow their guns through enemy lines to safety when they can't get their vehicles/tanks through? And don't say horses/partisans! Smile

2. To include 'cut off' units.
I think it's fitting that the rule is extended to all 'cut off' units. For example, in a GJS GC, it makes no sense that disbanded paratroopers should magically evade capture and return at full strength on the beaches simply because they're 'supplied' from the air. (As with the following stipulations this probably wont come up much anyhow: if they've got your para they're probably pushing you back into the sea at the 'supply' beaches).

'Lost' units and reinforce and the beaches: Common sense stuff but for the sake of having it written down: If you 'lose' a unit and it still has a reinforce using the reinforce of course cancels it's 'lost' status and returns it to full fighting strenght and full operational capabilities.

Units connecting to a beach map could be evacuated off the beaches, but they'd still most likely leave all vechicles, guns and tanks behind. So the only difference would be that they could engage at will when they returned allbeit without any gear.

If a disbanded unit shows up on a contested beach I think there should be an exemption to the 'all armour lost' condition (only after reinforce has been used for the unit). No doubt the attacker is throwing their best stuff at the beaches. However as soon as beachhead is established it should go to the rear (the size of the required beachhead for this being at the discretion of the players).

There's a few 'messy' parts to the rule but I think most of the 'messy' bits wont come up all that often like the last point for example. The main thing is of this rule is that you have to remember which units are disbanded... you could note them in the save filename (i.e. mik1/11pz,12ss+joe5/6para) or keep a note, or just remember in your head. Whatever works. Personally I like the filename method.

enjoy : Cool

#2: Author: aikmen, Location: Toronto Canada

Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:04 pm
—
Thats an amazing idea. The disband bug basically takes all the strategy out of the game. For example I made a huge pocket is a gjs GC; the next turn all the good units inside the pocket were disbanded only to come out in the next few turns fully equiped and supplied.

Playing a GC with the disband rule would be a much different expierence.

Aikmen; Second place is the first loser.

#3: Author: mooxe,

Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:13 pm
—
Its pretty much the only way to simulate the rule. I think its too complicated an issue to fix using the honor system for it to become mainstream.

#4: Author: Antony_nz,

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:02 am
—
Oh dang. What a annoying bug.

#5: mmm Author: ANZAC_Lord4war, Location: Sydney Australia

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:58 am
—
guess all depends on how u view it.
there are many rules 2 players can agree on before a game,and they all present a different twist.and r usually enjoyable to try out for no other reason than something different.
for example a battle is 15 units barely just over company strength.
why should rest of bg suffer for bad performance of a company in a particular battle.
in some mods where the para r cut off at start of gc
so are germ bgs on the beach
should they just auto disband? instead of fighting to keep the ab out of supply as long as possible,so there stronger bgs working towards the beaches can pick on out of supply paras.
the germans on the beaches and the paras inland r doing the same job.
and vs some germ bgs in GJS ur not a chance against certain BGs until u can get them cut off.

#6: Re: mmm Author: mikwarleo,

Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 5:00 am
—
.
Of course, everything depends on how you view it, however to throw my 2c (view) in again:

1. The 'rule' is probably better considered just a 'bug fix' given that it is in the game manual and was apparently intended to be coded into the game. For my money, regardless of other considerations that's undeniable justification that it is appropriate.

2. On the realism point / objections:
Perhaps it's a lesser of two evils but I think the rule is clearly better than the alternative.

For example, currently a cut off and surrounded BG can teleport behind enemy lines practially intact and set up a new position. That's a big problem in terms of realism.

In the game without the rule it's actually better to keep out-of-supply enemy BGs cut off and NOT push them to disband but to fight an ongoing battle of attrition while the enemy is disadvantaged. Of course, any decent opponent wont stand idly by and watch their BG bled dry, they'll voluntarily disband and soon enough the BG will be back, fully supplied and on the line a few days later. This is common in the standard game.

I agree the rule is not entirely realistic, much of the game isn't, the rule is just the better alternative.

Also, from another angle, I disagree it is unrealistic for the decimation of a company to prompt the BG to capitulate. When in a hopeless position (i.e. cut off and surrounded) defending forces rarely ever hold out until entirely decimated, they usually surrender very long before that. Several real-world examples come to mind.

Maybe in reality forces take a higher ratio of losses before they capitulate but even that is arguable. The reality of the way battles are fought in the game is that BGs that are eventually disbanded out of supply have probably seen their fair share of rough action over several days and been cut off for several battles and taking heavy casulties. Without the disband rule opponents can just teleport out any time you pin them into a tough spot they don't like. This is a part of the game but is so out-there I think it could be considered an exploit. As per the manual it certainly is not as the game was intended to be played.

Even in the case of game one-offs, those occassions where the first battle ends in the disband of a cut off enemy. Breakthroughs and quick victories resulting in mass surrenders happened in WW2. Without the disband rule you simply can't acheive this in the current game.

As L4W points out, in the end it's a matter of choice for the players. I personally am playing 80-90% of my games with this rule nowadays and I think it works quite well. Both sides act more sensibly, realistically and consider consquences of deployment more carefully.

For me the only problem with the rule is not it's suitability (clearly I think it's an improvement) the minor difficulty is keeping track of which BGs are considered 'lost' especially over a long GC lasting months. Of course if you're doing an AAR or just keeping note that is not real problem either.
.

Close Combat Series -> Site Info

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

Page 1 of 1