Frustration
Select messages from
 # through # Forum FAQ
[/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Last Stand Arnhem
#1: Frustration Author: VonStauffenberg,  PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:24 pm
    —
I have been testing out the GC lately and I have been disappointed at the strategic level. The mechanics of the game have made it impossible to rapidly advance across territory. As XXX corps, I get stalled on the first map because axis morale dips too low, forcing ME to stop attacking..... I disagree with this compassion my troops exhibit. This has led to strange tactics in which I ignore the enemy for fear of killing too many of them. Is there a mod out there that fixes this grievous issue? It also makes it impossible to take Arnhem bridge on the first day, because the Brits would rather chill and drink tea when the Germans gets too tired of fighting. What is the deal?
#2: Re: Frustration Author: Cowmando,  PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:11 pm
    —
Turn off the "battle ends..." "when force morale gets to low" option
#3: Re: Frustration Author: papa_whisky,  PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:53 pm
    —
Personally I think for LSA battle ending with low force moral makes the game harder, with the exception of taking bridges.
#4: Re: Frustration Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:19 am
    —
It was not uncommon that a target was more important than killing all the enemy troops seen....
#5: Re: Frustration Author: VonStauffenberg,  PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:07 am
    —
Cowmando wrote (View Post):
Turn off the "battle ends..." "when force morale gets to low" option


Yes, but then I have to spend a long time hunting for hidden units or collecting objectives, occasionally causing unnecessary casualties on my end. Or, if the AI somehow managed to bring my morale too low, I would have to fight to the last man, even if it was hopeless. It doesn't make sense why this should be the case. I guess this relates to the "flee" thread from earlier.


Tejszd wrote (View Post):

It was not uncommon that a target was more important than killing all the enemy troops seen....


If on the way to the target, I kill all or most of the enemy troops, it follows that I should continue to my objective.
#6: Re: Frustration Author: dj,  PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:37 am
    —
Yeah I think the Strategic Map and AI movement has serious flaws in general.  Frustrated with how the AI movement at strategic level seems paralyzed or unable to form any type of plan. For some reason it seems LSA has the very worst strategic level gameplay...worse than the original CC2 release.
#7: Re: Frustration Author: buuface, Location: Thailand PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:13 am
    —
Its a problem with the AI itself not the actual stratmap mechanics.

LSA has the most advanced level of strategic simulation of all the CC games to date but the AI is the same as before and therefor unable to cope with all the new options ect.

 playing against a human opponent will solve most of you  problems.


CC2 was a linear string of maps at the strategic level with no real requirements of the AI so of course it will seem more robust than LSA.
#8: Re: Frustration Author: kawasaky, Location: Zagreb, Hrvatska PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 7:44 am
    —
dj wrote (View Post):
Yeah I think the Strategic Map and AI movement has serious flaws in general.  Frustrated with how the AI movement at strategic level seems paralyzed or unable to form any type of plan. For some reason it seems LSA has the very worst strategic level gameplay...worse than the original CC2 release.

In fact CC2 has no strategic level. You just fight according to the plan your high command came up with. In the best case it goes up to the operational level, but it is 90% tactical game. As CLOSE COMBAT should be  Wink
#9: Re: Frustration Author: thumb,  PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:21 pm
    —
VonStauffenberg wrote (View Post):
Yes, but then I have to spend a long time hunting for hidden units or collecting objectives, occasionally causing unnecessary casualties on my end. Or, if the AI somehow managed to bring my morale too low, I would have to fight to the last man, even if it was hopeless. It doesn't make sense why this should be the case. I guess this relates to the "flee" thread from earlier.

What really doesnt make sense is that originally you thought LSA needed a mod to circumvent Force Morale rather than just deselecting that game option, and now you think that without the Force Moral option you "have to spend a long time hunting...or collecting" when there is an option to use a 15 minute game timer - a time limit that the game designers specifically recommend for solo play on p.23 (right below the warning that the design of the LSA campaign was balanced to use the Force Moral option).


VonStauffenberg wrote (View Post):
If on the way to the target, I kill all or most of the enemy troops, it follows that I should continue to my objective.

Which is why a battle terminated due to loss of Force Moral awards the nearest additional 1-3 objectives to the victor. It also follows that when most or all of the enemies troops are killed in a given sector, the enemy reaction is  to reinforce that area and prevent its adversary from seizing all of his objectives.  The mechanics of Force Moral battle termination attempt to abstract the typical post-battle actions of both the winning and losing sides.
#10: Re: Frustration Author: VonStauffenberg,  PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 7:37 pm
    —
thumb wrote (View Post):
VonStauffenberg wrote (View Post):
Yes, but then I have to spend a long time hunting for hidden units or collecting objectives, occasionally causing unnecessary casualties on my end. Or, if the AI somehow managed to bring my morale too low, I would have to fight to the last man, even if it was hopeless. It doesn't make sense why this should be the case. I guess this relates to the "flee" thread from earlier.

What really doesnt make sense is that originally you thought LSA needed a mod to circumvent Force Morale rather than just deselecting that game option, and now you think that without the Force Moral option you "have to spend a long time hunting...or collecting" when there is an option to use a 15 minute game timer - a time limit that the game designers specifically recommend for solo play on p.23 (right below the warning that the design of the LSA campaign was balanced to use the Force Moral option).


VonStauffenberg wrote (View Post):
If on the way to the target, I kill all or most of the enemy troops, it follows that I should continue to my objective.

Which is why a battle terminated due to loss of Force Moral awards the nearest additional 1-3 objectives to the victor. It also follows that when most or all of the enemies troops are killed in a given sector, the enemy reaction is  to reinforce that area and prevent its adversary from seizing all of his objectives.  The mechanics of Force Moral battle termination attempt to abstract the typical post-battle actions of both the winning and losing sides.



How is this hard to understand? A timer just does not work, because it creates strange and unnecessary problems. For example, if the map is large (and anyone who has played LSA knows the maps are enormous) I must spend 10 minutes walking to the action (boring to say the least) and risk a stalemate, or run to save time, fatiguing my troops. OR I might just run into some enemy troops along the way, wipe them out (XXX corps is good at this), and end the battle prematurely, with a meager gain of three objectives. It's just annoying, especially with the early Arnhem and XXX corps battles. If I turn off force moral, then the AI and myself are left with the unpleasant option of dying to the last man. One of the best things about cc2 and 3 was knowing when to retreat. Why should the Germans or paras stay and fight tanks when they have no way to kill them? Sure, force moral is an abstraction. It works sometimes, but during crucial turns when you need to break through enemy defenses, it creates a sluggish campaigning atmosphere. 1 squad is all it takes to delay XXX corps an hour or more.
#11: Re: Frustration Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 8:26 pm
    —
Quote:
1 squad is all it takes to delay XXX corps an hour or more.


Sort of like real life...isn't it?

My recollection is XXX corps were delayed, delayed, delayed..... by nothing.
#12: Re: Frustration Author: thumb,  PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 11:45 pm
    —
VonStauffenberg wrote (View Post):
...a sluggish campaigning atmosphere...

An admirably succinct description of Market-Garden, from both perspectives. The bulk of 1AB failed to slug its way into Arnhem. XXX Corps was nothing if not sluggish in its advance north, never attaining its objective. The German counter-attack against Frost at the bridge was a slow, brutal slog, as was the assault on the Oosterbeek perimeter.

“Everything in war is simple, but the simplest thing is difficult. The difficulties accumulate and end by producing a kind of friction that is inconceivable unless one has experienced war.” - von Clausewitz on "frustration"
#13: Re: Frustration Author: VonStauffenberg,  PostPosted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:50 am
    —
History buffs can nitpick and attack the straw man all they want, but acknowledge that the inability to retreat is a serious flaw. I would like to point out that it is historically possible to retreat. All of the strange tactics I described are unrealistic... like avoiding killing enemy troops so as not to scare them. Yes, market garden may have actually been sluggish, but why would I be playing a game if I thought it would turn out exactly like history?
Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Last Stand Arnhem


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

Page 1 of 1