Welcome to Close Combat Series
  Login or Register Home  ·  Downloads  ·  Forums  ·  Combat Camera  ·  Help  

  Survey
Do incapacitations count as a soldier's kills?

Yes
No



Results
Polls

Votes 450
Comments: 0

  Shout Box!!

Only registered users can shout. Please login or create an account.

  Main Menu
Articles & News  
    Help
    Player`s News
    Site News
    Multiplayer
    Terrain Challenge
    Boot Camp
Community  
    Forums
    Downloads
    Combat Camera
    MOOXE @ Youtube
    Statistics
Members  
    Private Messages
    Your Account
    Logout

  Donations
Anonymous - $25.00
08/15/2022

Anonymous - $25.00
08/15/2022

Anonymous - $25.00
12/18/2021

Anonymous - $100.00
11/08/2021

Anonymous - $15.00
04/09/2021

Anonymous - $100.00
04/05/2021

Anonymous - $20.00
02/20/2021

Anonymous - $10.00
12/29/2020

Anonymous - $1.00
11/06/2020

ZAPPI4 - $20.00
10/10/2020

Find our site useful? Make a small donation to show your support.



Search for at
Close Combat Series Advanced Search


Goto page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 Author
Message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:26 am Post subject: Re: Angriff Reply with quote

DAK_Legion wrote (View Post):
PJ said.....you are an american fat......


I am not fat!  Razz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Nomada_Firefox

Rep: 32.9
votes: 9


PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:50 pm Post subject: Re: Angriff Reply with quote

Quote:
I have never paid more than $30 for any modern CC title. Perhpas you need self discipline or therapy or both.

All your answers are lies and people can see them easily. Even the old CCMT cost more of $30. http://www.matrixgames.com/products/350/details/Close.Combat.-.Modern.Tactics.
 
Perhaps you have not bought any CC game at all your life.

Now I was making a serius discussion. But What, I do not go to continue arguing with you because you look to me as a troll.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:15 pm Post subject: Re: Angriff Reply with quote

Hi Firefox,

I suggest you take some time off from the thread to grow up. It will do you some good me thinks.

http://www.matrixgames.com/news/982/Matrix.Games.Holiday.Sale.is.Here!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:41 pm Post subject: Re: Angriff Reply with quote

Here is another ...

http://www.slitherinebravo.net/pr/HolidaySale2013/MG_MG_SALES_HolidaySale2013_CatalogMG_01.pdf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:59 pm Post subject: Re: Angriff Reply with quote

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):
Even the old CCMT cost more of $30. http://www.matrixgames.com/products/350/details/Close.Combat.-.Modern.Tactics.  


I know it is late, but you might want to check that again Firefox.

If it is GTC's multiplayer that is messin with ya, I read on the Slitherene site, that you may need to move closer to their server in England. But if you do that, you wont be able to wear your burka. Or is that in France, I forget.

And just for fun, how about 2008.

http://www.matrixgames.com/news/545/Matrix.Games.Announces.the.2008.Holiday.Sale
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Manoi

Rep: 86.5
votes: 7


PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 6:34 pm Post subject: Re: Angriff Reply with quote

Patch 1.02 for GTC is available. I think (and I hope) there are no more excuses to continue the mod now.
I will begin a new thread about Angriff! in the GTC section.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:05 am Post subject: Re: Angriff Reply with quote

johnsilver wrote (View Post):
Quote:
PJ I remember also had a way to address this for his Stalingrad mods besides the smaller maps, don't recall exactly what he did.


Hi DJ,

Yeah, PJ and Selhexe were talking about that on one of the OLD Stalingrad post/topics long ago and PJ posted how he did it, it was when PJ went ballistic over Selhexe making that vetmod for DK. Digging up that topic should find the answer.

Werf


I am just guessing, but me thinks it probably had to do with zombies. I myself have done a thing or two with zombies, and yes with zombies, map size is a non-issue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Nomada_Firefox

Rep: 32.9
votes: 9


PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:48 am Post subject: Re: Angriff Reply with quote

Manoi wrote (View Post):
Patch 1.02 for GTC is available. I think (and I hope) there are no more excuses to continue the mod now.
I will begin a new thread about Angriff! in the GTC section.


Now perhaps you can delete the multiplayer problem from the equation but you should value the IA problem with big maps.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Manoi

Rep: 86.5
votes: 7


PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:06 am Post subject: Re: Angriff Reply with quote

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):


Now perhaps you can delete the multiplayer problem from the equation but you should value the IA problem with big maps.


I will limit the size. Maybe no small maps as CC4 but more medium maps that allow flanking moves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Pzt_Crackwise

Rep: 64.9
votes: 1


PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:34 am Post subject: Re: Angriff Reply with quote

Yes Manoi, small maps such as those in CC4 really do not allow proper tactics. I totally agree with your decision to go on with larger maps!

On pure multiplayer perspective, I think GJS had the best map sizes, but I agree with Firefox that large maps make playing against the AI even more boring.  But as I always say, playing CC against AI is just a waste of time. Everyone should play multiplayer if possible! Smile  

Even if people cannot commit to long-lasting operations, I think playing single battles is still pretty good. And assuming we had a stable game (hopefully with the latest patch) with a lot of balanced single battles created by players, reviving the ladder (a la Tournament House) in this case would be pretty cool.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:44 pm Post subject: Re: Angriff Reply with quote

I consider CC4 Baugnez a small map. It has always been a lot of fun with plenty opportunities for good tactics too.

It is 13x13 or 312 meters square.

It is just that for a lot of players the only tactics they comprehend are related to movement, like flanking.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 1:07 pm Post subject: Re: Angriff Reply with quote

I would consider CC3 Stalingrad 3 a medium map (17x17) or 408 meters square. Again with lots of potential for tactics.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 1:36 pm Post subject: Re: Angriff Reply with quote

CC5 Cap de la Hague would be a large map. In fact the largest I allow. (20x20) or 480 meters square. Plenty of tank action on this one if you like.

Over time the developers kept modifying the maximum map allowed in the subsequent titles.

But they didn't take into account other factors related to the AI on the larger maps. They didn't really touch that code.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Pzt_Crackwise

Rep: 64.9
votes: 1


PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 3:26 pm Post subject: Re: Angriff Reply with quote

That Cap de la Hague map is actually pretty good I think in terms of size.

The problem with small maps when playing against a human opponent is that, it limits you a lot (as the attacker) due to not having much choice in terms of attack direction. Thus, the defender can basically deploy whatever he has on one spot. Whereas, in medium to large maps the attacker can follow a less obvious attack route combined with feint attacks. Of course this involves a little bit of gambling and opponent skill assessment sometimes, but that's the fun of it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Nomada_Firefox

Rep: 32.9
votes: 9


PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 4:15 pm Post subject: Re: Angriff Reply with quote

Manoi wrote (View Post):
Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):


Now perhaps you can delete the multiplayer problem from the equation but you should value the IA problem with big maps.


I will limit the size. Maybe no small maps as CC4 but more medium maps that allow flanking moves.

Just two points, first this is a close combat and second the IA will not flank you, never.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Drizzt

Rep: 121
votes: 9


PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 4:28 pm Post subject: Re: Angriff Reply with quote

Nomada, it's you (you = the human player) that for the fun sometimes flank the enemy (the enemy IA in single player or a Human player in multiplayer). Medium map size (it's better medium-small than medium-big) it's the compromise (I think good) between multiplayer players needs and single player players (like me) needs.

Drizzt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Manoi

Rep: 86.5
votes: 7


PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 4:29 pm Post subject: Re: Angriff Reply with quote

Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):
Manoi wrote (View Post):
Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):


Now perhaps you can delete the multiplayer problem from the equation but you should value the IA problem with big maps.


I will limit the size. Maybe no small maps as CC4 but more medium maps that allow flanking moves.

Just two points, first this is a close combat and second the IA will not flank you, never.


the problem is to find a compromise between single and multiplayer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 3:34 am Post subject: Re: Angriff Reply with quote

Manoi wrote (View Post):
the problem is to find a compromise between single and multiplayer.


To begin with, me thinks you should re-state the problem as follows:

To find a compromise between single and multi-battle. Solve that issue first.

Multi-battles (even on the same map) and in the context of an operation or a grand campaign are in direct opposition to single-battles (on the same map) as it relates to map sizes and the number and placement of VLs on the corresponding maps.

With CCMT, the campaigns and operations were eliminated, therefore this problem was solved.

With a campaign game format, you could just simply eliminate the single-battles. One tab and its corresponding entries would be removed. Players can still design operations that involve fewer and fewer maps, but they can never quite get to a single map - single battle. The minimum maps in an operation could be 3 or perhaps 2, as enforced by the system.

There is still the issue of single player vs. multi player. But it has far fewer issues than the one mentioned above.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:14 am Post subject: Re: Angriff Reply with quote

One other point regarding single battle vs multi battle.

Atomic must have understood this problem. After all, its is really a no brainer. Lets see, I have this map. In one case I just want to fight a single (one) battle, and in the other case I want this map to support many battles. So, since I want to use the map for many battles, I probably need to make it larger.

But, when I want to make any map larger (even for scaling purposes), I may need to use more VLs on the larger map. So, Atomic tried to partially resolve this issue by creating major and minor VLs. Some VLs are worth more victory points than others. For instance, in CCMT, the VLs are worth the same amount of victory points.

It is the fixed number of teams and VLs, that in the end put real limitations on the size of each and every map. Why, because the area of map can increase exponentially. And the number of teams and the number of VLs are NOT increasing in an exponential way.

12x12 = small map = 144 square deployment tiles - 15 teams - 16 victory locations

16x16 = medium map = 256 tiles - 15 teams - 16 victory locations

20x20 = large map = 400 tiles - 15 teams - 16 victory locations

30x30 = campaign map = 900 tiles - 15 teams - 16 victory locations

As the maps increase in size, they have less value when utilized for a single battle, but perhaps more value when utilized for many battles, except for the one glaring dichotomy presented above.

And to boil all tactics to 2 distinct types: 1. Concentration of force(this includes flanking), and 2. Mutual support. Me thinks you could say these 2 tactics, are again in opposition to one other as it relates to map size or area.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Stwa

Rep: 308.9
votes: 16


PostPosted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 10:04 am Post subject: Re: Angriff Reply with quote

So as it turns out, especially in the context of tactics; you can get an exponential increase in the number of VLs that is roughly correlated to map size.

16 is the maximum number of VLs, but you can manually enforce a maximum value for each map size as follows;

12x12 = small map = 144 square deployment tiles - 15 teams - 2 victory locations

16x16 = medium map = 256 tiles - 15 teams - 4 victory locations

20x20 = large map = 400 tiles - 15 teams - 8 victory locations

30x30 = campaign map = 900 tiles - 15 teams - 16 victory locations

I implemented basically this arrangement with my own map collections. But, when you look at this situation and relate it to the two tactics (concentration of force, and mutual support), is it any wonder when map sizes increase that the AI becomes less and less capable.

Of course, the AI is further handicapped by the fact that it probably has no memory (short or long term). So, imagine playing against another human player with this disability.

Over time, I have listened to many players express the benefits of movement; usually flanking, as an essential ingredient for game play. What I discovered was the players were really expressing the idea of a flank march, not simply flanking an enemy unit. There can be a considerable amount of difference.

So, for any map to allow, one side or another to take all or most of its force and flank march it in a way where they arrive at a 90 degree angle to the tangent that would represent the defenders battle "line", would require another substantial increase in map size.

Me thinks these players have a necessity to win the battles that they play against the AI, so large maps are their favorite, since movement tactics, like marching most of your force to a flank, are somewhat simple in nature. In conclusion, these players publicly disdain the AI.

Perhaps this kind of movement should be reserved for the strategic layer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
 
Post new topicReply to topic printer-friendly view Close Combat Series Forum Index -> CC5 Stalingrad
Goto page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


 
   
 


Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum




Forums ©





In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited and
found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some of the great Close Combat
mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank all the members of our volunteer staff that have
helped over the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!