Quote: |
Got to agree with Brake here. Some of the deployment zones are basically Murder Holes for the attackers |
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). |
hexdeploymentCC6.jpg | ||
Description: |
|
|
Filesize: | 14.43 KB | |
Viewed: | 10333 Time(s) | |
Hostilian wrote (View Post): |
Eh? 'Prove me wrong?'
Some of the attacking zones ARE murder holes for attackers. CORRECT. |
Hostilian wrote (View Post): |
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. |
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'. |
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. |
Hostilian wrote (View Post): |
There is frequently nowhere to hide and, of course, no way to introduce a second wave of troops in CC5. |
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. |
Quote: |
This is like golf, with a handicap system. Yeh that can work for them who are not that grate at attacking. |
Hostilian wrote (View Post): |
Horses for courses and courses for horses. |
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. |
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. |
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? |
Quote: |
Horses for courses and courses for horses.
Yeh, teach me the basic of CC5 please.. |
Hostilian wrote (View Post): |
So you now agree with me? Bit of a flip flopping of your opinion... |
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! |
Hostilian wrote (View Post): |
You seem to think that I am trying to make 'you and your friends' do something you dont want to. |
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. |
Stalky wrote (View Post): |
As in, do whatever works for you... Me, and my friends have no problem with the "small" entry box.. |
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 |
Quote: |
Why should a physical entry size (big differance in size) be subject of any of the mentioned quality’s? |
German entry points - bolder pincer and its opposite - safety-first.jpg | ||
Description: |
|
|
Filesize: | 283.59 KB | |
Viewed: | 10535 Time(s) | |
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 |
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. |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT