Close Combat Series :: View topic - split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement?

split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement?

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> Tech Support

#1: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: CC_CO,

Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:06 am
—
The image show the split up deployment zones for the German side (nikin), while the allied side (my side), has a singular deployment zone?

Game: CC5
Mod: GJS
Submod: TRSM 982
Scenario: Operation Jupiter
Gamemode: h2h

#2: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:35 am
—
Hi CC CO

Yep

These things happens in CC5.
Was it so that in previous round Germans held a grate part of the map? If that’s so, then the Germans deploy zones are reasonable (from a game mechanics point of view specially vs the AI).

Not an answer to yer question though a answer how we are use to handle this situation:
As an old “rule” in CC5-GC we was not allowed to deploy in arias where we dint have direct access to a controlled VL location. In this case, the Germans would not be allowed to deploy in the 2 extra arias. But of coarse those rules need to be agreed before start a GC.

#3: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:46 am
—
I may explain things that are already applied, but here is a graphics illustration about the VL deploy rule*.

Playing with these rules greatly enhance the game play. There is no need to have sneaking units clearing up all the small arias to deny the enemy to deploy in them.. This make you have all 15 units available for action..

From a realism point of view this is also preferred, as the enemy cant "teleport" there units to a “small box” far into the opponents arias.

*The VL deploy rule (C) AT_Dima & AT_AJ

See attached image:

VL deploy rules (kopia).jpg

Description:

Filesize:

274.6 KB

Viewed:

9944 Time(s)

#4: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: CC_CO,

Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:30 am
—
Hi Stalky,

Thanks for the VL rule explanation.

The map-result previously to this battle, was in allied favour, being my side. The image looked like this:

Nikin, suggested that the airstrike-bug, which we also encountered, perhaps has something to do with the deployment bug?

On the strat map, both units being moved into the Baron map, is seen on this image, where Nikin has moved in a Panzergrenadier BG and I have moved in a Tank BG.

#5: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:49 am
—
Hm, yeh, that looks strange.
We probably get the answer soon. Very Happy

#6: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: CC_CO,

Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:56 am
—
Would be nice if we did, yes. Its a strange bug.

Anyhow, perhaps others in the community has experienced the same deployment bug?

#7: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: US_Brake, Location: USA

Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 6:31 pm
—
When it comes to deployment issues CC3/COI seems work better than the other versions of CC. When you start a new battle on a new map both sides gets (at a minimum) a long strip of deployable land divided by neutral territory. After a battle, territory you have advanced into is normally provided to the player for the next day to deploy in. The winner and loser of a match also effects deployment in next day battles. The computer tend to give to winner more area and takes from the match loser.

When CC4 came out and I discovered that players would start matches in a small deployment box in the corner surrounded by the opponent I concluded that whoever designed the CC4 deployment scheme was a complete idiot. That element of the game alone was enough for me to conclude that CC4 was junk.

Later when CC5 came out I decided to give it a try. I played my first h2h game with Anzac_Tack. I started in a small box with 10+ units and Tack surrounded me with all his troops and when the game started all my troops in the small box came under instant mortar and small arms fire at close range until the computer decided for me to retreat. That was enough for me to conclude that CC5 was junk.

I have never understood how anyone could have designed that type of deployment in the first place. In addition the deployment after a battle is so messed up that players have to invent player made rules to make it work.

What is the solution to this for future CC games?

My answer; Go back to CCIII type deployment.

#8: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:22 pm
—
Hi

I don’t agree with you, we have diff taste and preferences. Some comment though:

US_Brake wrote (View Post):

When it comes to deployment issues CC3/COI seems work better than the other versions of CC. When you start a new battle on a new map both sides gets (at a minimum) a long strip of deployable land divided by neutral territory.

Sounds like a meeting engagement to me. I doubt that reflects all types of situations.

US_Brake wrote (View Post):

Later when CC5 came out I decided to give it a try. I played my first h2h game with Anzac_Tack. I started in a small box with 10+ units and Tack surrounded me with all his troops and when the game started all my troops in the small box came under instant mortar and small arms fire at close range until the computer decided for me to retreat.

US_Brake wrote (View Post):

That was enough for me to conclude that CC5 was junk. .

If you was playing Germans on the beaches u had less than 15 units, they where the ONLY BGs that had less than 15 units. The Germans controlled the whole map, and US came into that small aria.. A good German player would simply delay the US and try to stay on the map for a battle or two.. Sounds pretty realistic to me (consider what happened there in 1944) ..

US_Brake wrote (View Post):

When CC4 came out and I discovered that players would start matches in a small deployment box in the corner surrounded by the opponent I concluded that whoever designed the CC4 deployment scheme was a complete idiot

US_Brake wrote (View Post):

I have never understood how anyone could have designed that type of deployment in the first place.

I can. And imagine all other who also can, (considering that CC5 is thee most popular CC game to date)…
Hm, it sounds like a pretty good set up for realism to me. The defender has the choice of terrain that he want to defend and where he can make the best defence.. And the attacker can in the same way decide where to attack, and where that’ would be favour to him.. If both doesn’t move in at the same time and we have a meeting.. . Then it’s a meeting set up, sounds realistic to me.

But then, of course, it would be stupid to enter that small box with a week unit, and at a map where the enemy hold a high quality BG… That would be a recipe for disaster (for the attacker) if he doesn’t enter at a very easy defended aria that is. That means one have to understand: how the tactical map in CC4-5 game interacts with the strategic map..

To make optimal movements on the start map is thus a combination of many things, 1) evaluate where to enter the tactical map that gives me the greatest possible chances for success, 2) what BG does the enemy hold at the map, strong or week, what opportunities and risk are there… 3) what BG to enter with, given the 1&2.. 4) Timing… Hm, sounds just a bit like in real life doesn’t it? I mean attack at the right place, defend at the right place and use an appropriate unit for the job, given timing.. War has been won and lost due to taken these factors into account… Sounds like a grate idea to incorporate this into a war game.. ?
Non of this is of concern in CC3 & COI..

US_Brake wrote (View Post):

In addition the deployment after a battle is so messed up that players have to invent player made rules to make it work.

US_Brake wrote (View Post):

What is the solution to this for future CC games?

The rules I mentioned is the “VL rule”, and I don’t remember how CC3-COI handle the division of the map after the game is played..
I agree, that in CC4-5 WaR LSA & TLD it is less than optimal. So I would have prefer a automatic clean up of the small scattered boxes, but until that is a feature of a high quality CC with a CC5-strategy map, we have to do it manually with simple rules. And the rules are not complicated, and I have never played anyone who hasn’t understand it after explained it in two sentences..

To criticize CC5 for this is valid, but it's a 12 year old aging lady that never even got a single official patch (if not counting the patch Eric made after Atomic went bust)..
But what’s to say about Matrix games that still haven’t dealt with this issue in the remakes WaR & TLD and LSA??

US_Brake wrote (View Post):

My answer; Go back to CCIII type deployment.

I doubt that. Though CC5 deploy need adjustment. As mentioned a bow, the idea with the strategic map that interact with the tactical map is very cool. And I would believe most who like CC4-5 – WaR – TLD would agree with that. Even though its not perfect...

But, the best is that we have both styles, CC3 and CC5 style, isn’t that grate and the best for everyone.

#9: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: US_Brake, Location: USA

Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:17 pm
—
One note, the battle I mention playing with Tack was a inland map with hedgerows and paratroopers.

I like your arguments AT_Stalky they are informative.

The point I was making is that, the VERY SMALL deployment set up for the typical CC5 type game is dumb design for CC. The sandbox size is already problematic to play a skirmish on.. why make that even worse by put everyone in a tiny corner?

The attacker should have the element of suprise in the attack. The attacker should have the option of attacking into a map at a point where the attacker chooses and where the defender can be misled. That is one of an attackers advatages; they choose the time and place to advance. In the CC5 set up the defender always knows where you attack point is and knows where all your units will start when entering a new map.

Since the first or second year CC3 came out we have had a player made tool, Free Deploy. This allows you to edit the deployment any way you want, giving more options that the original scenario editor. I like this tool and used it to make north south deployments on some battles, still do.

One trend that developed when Free Deploy came out was a few ladder players started hosting battles using free deploy that instead of opening up more deployment options, they used it to make less options. In other words they made you start in a SMALL BOX deployment, turned the battle into a pet map that they perfected as a defender. They gave you pre-picked units made you start in a known location in which you were surrounded. The jokers who made these types of battles called it a "superior battle design." Most players saw this type of set up for what it was, a under-handed gimic to gain an advantage, not unlike a map in which you can block a couple bridges with tanks etc. You can imagine my and other CC3 players destain when, year or two later CC4 came out with the SMALL BOX.

#10: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:31 am
—
The reason why is here.
Its been clearly outlined and has taken the entire time since the re-release to get acknowledgement that its an error.
Of course unfortunately no update will probably be ever be provided to CCV.

Thank-you for your business,please come again.
Huge Sale,Shop Now!

Ive been asking for a fix and Steve has seen it,but who knows? The interpretation still seems to be too broad of a subject to conclude what is the answer.............................................................................you know what I mean?

Ofcouse CC_CO doesn't say exactly where the 2 new BG's entered the map that I can see of.
I would like to know.

And I still don't understand how so many doesn't like the Strategic Map.
Its the next best thing to Moral.
You need help Brake.

I do agree however that the Free Deploy Tool was "Awesome"

#11: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: US_Brake, Location: USA

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:22 am
—

Quote:

I do agree however that the Free Deploy Tool was "Awesome"

Yes! I wonder if anyone looked into adding free deploy's ability to COI when it was being developed?

Yes! I need help. I'm stuck in 1998.

#12: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:48 am
—
Thanx Dave for posting this at that link.
This is an error in WaR (attached image) that I have NEVER seen in CC5, though I literally played thousands of games!
Have you seen anything like this in the latest patches?

#13: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 12:04 pm
—
First i like to apologize to CC CO for having somewhat OT debates here.

US_Brake, I know u like CC3 style of GC, and the close relation one develop with the only BG one is using. That’s one type of game that has its positive sides.

But back to the start map, In a CC5 type of GC you have a whole army of BGs, each with its own strength and weaknesses. This pretty much represent the real composition at the battlefield.
Each terrain and each task has different demands on the BG, thus the variety a real army have, and this is represented very well in CC5. I attach a situation map, at round 21, in GJS/TRSM.
As you can see we are fighting at 11 different places:

I don’t whant to talk to much about my own force.. So I talk about my opponents force:
A short description of BGs:
The 130/Lehr has good inf, and many Mk IV and a few Tigers.
The 901/Lehr has JPZ, and HT, and good inf, with good AT abilities.
I.6/Lehr is a nasty opponent, with some 18 Panthers, and HT and v good inf.
II.25/12 Good inf, some HT and good AT abilities.
III.25/12 Tiger BG..
I/12 Panther BG, 18 Panthers, good inf
902/Lehr JPZ and good inf and good AT abilities.
Etc..

Dima is the commander of the German forces, and he has picked the maps very carefully for each and everyone of the BGs, its no chance that the III.25/12 Tiger & I/12 Panther BG are at them open maps which gives his hardware the maximum advantage and UK has not much to deal with em.
Like vice is it no accident that he has 902 Lehr at the Caen map, a city map of grate importance and that II.26/12 SS is at the steel mill. This is urban arias where high quality infantry and AT can make a good fight vs the UK armour.

130 Lehr is of good quality but with its Mk IV it cant dominate open arias like the tigers and panther BGs, thus he have it at Lingevres and the boscage where he use em with tactical skill and movement, combined with the HTs that he use rather efficient... The same situation can be said about I.22/21 down south. It has been fighting in the same way for long now.

Going back to the early fights, Dima let the beach units fight a defensive battle, delaying and slowly redrawing. The forces that he had available close to the beach was weak and thus had to be used in that way to maximize playoff.

To fight in this strategic map, and having success on the tactical battles is thus a matter of analyzing the tactical maps and entry points, picking the right unit to enter with, looking at opportunities (where the enemy has the “wrong” units at a map), timing, and making the best use of all units given there relative strength ( compared to all own units and enemy units).
In this fight GJS/TRSM Dima is the data designer where each BG is researched to represent the real historical as close as possible. His composition of the infantry units is also very close to the doctrine used by each unit, though he keep on researching so he may well fined new info that will be incorperated.
The GJS map composition is also pretty cool, and the strategy layer is probably thee best to date.

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Mon Mar 05, 2012 12:40 pm; edited 1 time in total

#14: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 12:25 pm
—
It's been like that since CCIV.
I never played CCV enough to look for it but Id be willing to bet the same error is there.

I bet if you follow the instructions posted you could create/re-create horrible deployment for the enemy.

#15: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:39 pm
—
Be nice to have a separate thread debating Strategic Maps and Force Pools.

#16: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:30 am
—
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.

#17: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:04 pm
—

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

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.

Okay, stay with me Tejzsd.

You say : LSA address the deployment zone issues [in CC5]..

I’m not aware that there is an issue with the GENERAL attack /defence deploy zone in CC5…

I haven’t played LSA, so im just doing some analysis on the changes in LSA that you describe.

First, lest analyze the way the CC5 handles the entry into a new map as the attacker.
In CC5 the attacker come in to that “small” aria and the defender holds the rest of the map.
Now, how come that the designer of CC5 chose just that exact size of the entry box? Was it a design accident? Random event? Incompetence, or what was that about?

Lets see how bad the CC5 small attack entry box is:

When two reasonable equal humans plays either reg CC5 or a mod with high level of realism and a well designed strat map they often fined that there GC ends close to the historical outcome.
Why would the outcome be like this if there’s a realism problem with the small entry box?

So, the conclusion must be that the entry box size in CC5 cant be a problem and can NOT be a drawback to the attacker seen from a realism point of view and to modelling the historical outcomes of a grand campaign?

Many things actually points to that the size of the CC5 attack entry box is no accident nor “issue”. But the size it’s a carefully thought and well tested game design that will mimic outcome of continual historical battles relatively close. But then, that’s how Atomic made things.

So, when LSA now allows for multiple entry’s and thus makes the attacker position stronger, that must mean that the delicate so fine balance described a bow between attack / defence is then lost in LSA?

Now, tell me how CC5 attack entry box size can be an “issue” in a GC, given the a bow described.

/S

#18: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: US_Brake, Location: USA

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:57 pm
—
Just because the game functions with the small box deployment entry design doesnt make it realistic.

Imagine yourself a Major in WW2 in charge of 15 elite units who had trained for months and years to be in this fight. You are ordered to advance into enemy territory, kill and take ground.

The first thing you do is order your troops," soldiers.... I want you to all bunch up close together so that when we make first contact with the enemy we can appear on the scene as fish in a barrel."

first they put you in a box, then they put you in the ground....

Stalky, you got to think "outside" the box. Very Happy

commonsense.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

30.85 KB

Viewed:

10045 Time(s)

#19: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:20 pm
—
Well, depending on the competence of the Major and how well he trained his soldiers.

Ceteris paribus, the CC5 entry will generate a realistic outcome in a series of battles, it don’t matter how you turn that…

MOst of us learnd (what not to do) from WW1 mate...

Normally any competent officer will chose a focal point of the attack. You know, where he will concentrate the barrage, perhaps air support. The officer will use infantry or scouts to flush out heavy weapons (AT guns), they in there turn will be destroyed by indirect measures. As the heavy weapons are destroyed, things start to roll. Timing and “keeping the momentum” is very important. The force then use overwhelming firepower to the focal point to knock a hole just there.
Momentum is key so the defender can’t redeploy easy, and the movements are vulnerable to indirect fire. And thedefender have a hard time making efficient use of his own indirect support. The momentum also gives the defender an interesting command and information problem…

We look at the same thing:
When you see an attack in CC5 as “mission impossible” me and my friends constantly smiles and see grate attack opportunities and most important, we can at a regular basis carry them through!

US_Brake, you need to start play CC5 mate… And you know what, I envy you, you have all them “ahhhhaaaaaa”, “ooooohowcool” moments in front of you…

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:21 pm; edited 1 time in total

#20: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: US_Brake, Location: USA

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:02 pm
—
I have deploy issues of my own to deal with. Current Op with Soviet Commander RD_Helmut. War of the Rats!

missioncreep.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

110.03 KB

Viewed:

10017 Time(s)

#21: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: Hostilian,

Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:47 pm
—
Got to agree with Brake here. Some of the deployment zones are basically Murder Holes for the attackers. Shocked

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). Idea

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)

#22: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:26 pm
—

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. ::

http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=5130&start=0

http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=7410&start=0

http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=971&start=0

http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=638&start=0

You can fined more example if you want it. Not counting (the silent majority) who play this grate game and who don’t make AARs.

You know, CC5 hasn’t reached its popularity and kept it for 12 years because it has a major game mechanics defect that makes it impossible to attack…

#23: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: Hostilian,

Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:55 pm
—
Eh? 'Prove me wrong?'
Some of the attacking zones ARE murder holes for attackers. CORRECT. Wink

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. Wink

You seem to be adding your own commentary!?! Shocked

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.

Horses for courses and courses for horses. Very Happy

#24: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: US_Brake, Location: USA

Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:14 pm
—
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.

Last edited by US_Brake on Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:06 am; edited 1 time in total

hexdeploymentCC6.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

14.43 KB

Viewed:

10385 Time(s)

#25: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: CC_CO,

Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:17 pm
—
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?

#26: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:18 am
—

Hostilian wrote (View Post):

Eh? 'Prove me wrong?'
Some of the attacking zones ARE murder holes for attackers. CORRECT. Wink

Yeh, so a competent commander should not enter there with a week unit...

Hostilian wrote (View Post):

Ohh, I dint know that, Im new to CC... and:

Hostilian wrote (View Post):

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...

See what I mean...

Hostilian wrote (View Post):

No advance scouts on the map to probe strength before 'commiting' the full force. You effectively commit the full force every time.

Eh,, yes we scout the enemy force every time before battle, its done by clicking in the upper right corner where one select troops..

Hostilian wrote (View Post):

There is frequently nowhere to hide and, of course, no way to introduce a second wave of troops in CC5.

Eh, thats exactly what the GC in CC5 is about.. U know, were the battle ends at 6AM followd by a continuation battle at 2PM and so on...

Hostilian wrote (View Post):

it was a 'suggestion' and is up to the players playing a particular game, not a third party to say 'NO' to them.

hahaha, maybe thats why I said:

Quote:

This is like golf, with a handicap system. Yeh that can work for them who are not that grate at attacking.

Asin, do whatever works for you... Me, and my friends have no problem with the "small" entry box..

Hostilian wrote (View Post):

Horses for courses and courses for horses. Very Happy

Yeh, teach me the basic of CC5 please..

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:25 am; edited 3 times in total

#27: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:27 am
—

US_Brake wrote (View Post):

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_,

#28: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: CC_CO,

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:08 pm
—
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?

#29: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: CC_CO,

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:12 pm
—

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

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.

#30: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:27 pm
—

CC_CO wrote (View Post):

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?

CC_CO wrote (View Post):

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

#31: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: Hostilian,

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:29 pm
—
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. Laughing

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? Wink

Oh and I got CC5 when it came out too... Its not as big a deal as you think. Wink

Anyway. Off on hols for a long weekend. Have a good one!

#H

#32: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:01 pm
—
Thers obviousley a problem..

Hostilian wrote (View Post):

So you now agree with me? Bit of a flip flopping of your opinion...

But if you read whats been said equal to that I have changed my opinion,… Then you read it in yer own little way.

Hostilian wrote (View Post):

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 …

Hostilian wrote (View Post):

You seem to think that I am trying to make 'you and your friends' do something you dont want to.

Are you just trying to flame this thread?... I quote my self:

Stalky wrote (View Post):

This is like golf, with a handicap system. Yeh that can work for them who are not that grate at attacking.

and:

Stalky wrote (View Post):

As in, do whatever works for you... Me, and my friends have no problem with the "small" entry box..

See what I mean... or read it again..
Or what are you fishing for?

Hostilian wrote (View Post):

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...

#33: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: CC_CO,

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:32 pm
—

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.

Last edited by CC_CO on Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:13 pm; edited 1 time in total

German entry points - bolder pincer and its opposite - safety-first.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

283.59 KB

Viewed:

10587 Time(s)

German entry points - bolder pincer and its opposite - safety-first.jpg

#34: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:09 pm
—
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..

/S

#35: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: CC_CO,

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:22 pm
—
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 Smile

#36: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:26 pm
—
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

#37: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: CC_CO,

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:35 pm
—
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.

#38: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:38 am
—
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

#39: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: US_Brake, Location: USA

Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:12 am
—

AT_Stalky wrote (View Post):

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

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.

#40: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 9:41 am
—

US_Brake wrote (View Post):

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.. Very Happy

#41: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: keyser Soeze,

Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 4:40 am
—
US_Brake im with you 100% on this.

I had almost forgotten about this issue (not played CCV in a long time).

But this was one of the major factors that made me prefer CCIII over CCIV and CCV.

CCIII is simply much more rewarding in the start of the map, you can choose so many different tactics on any one map, it makes the maps feel unique every time you play them.

I also like the req-system much more, then you really need to make hard choices of what units to have, sometimes a few "elit" units and sometimes tons of conscripts. all depending on map and situation.

CCIII > CCCV big time. (and one should really add DoF2) Smile

#42: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Author: CSO_Talorgan,

Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 7:15 pm
—

US_Brake wrote (View Post):

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.

Yes!

Close Combat Series -> Tech Support

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

Page 1 of 1