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 1180
Comments: 1

  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 1, 2, 3  Next
 Author
Message
 
CC_CO

Rep: 32.1
votes: 3


PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:06 am Post subject: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message GameRanger Account
 
AT_Stalky

Rep: 27.4
votes: 10


PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:35 am Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
AT_Stalky

Rep: 27.4
votes: 10


PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:46 am Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Reply with quote

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:  9747 Time(s)

VL deploy rules (kopia).jpg


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
CC_CO

Rep: 32.1
votes: 3


PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:30 am Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Reply with quote

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.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message GameRanger Account
 
AT_Stalky

Rep: 27.4
votes: 10


PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:49 am Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Reply with quote

Hm, yeh, that looks strange.
We probably get the answer soon.  Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
CC_CO

Rep: 32.1
votes: 3


PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:56 am Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Reply with quote

Would be nice if we did, yes. Its a strange bug.

Anyhow, perhaps others in the community has experienced the same deployment bug?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message GameRanger Account
 
US_Brake

Rep: 24.2
votes: 22


PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 6:31 pm Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Reply with quote

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.




Close Combat's most infamous SOB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website GameRanger Account
 
AT_Stalky

Rep: 27.4
votes: 10


PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:22 pm Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
US_Brake

Rep: 24.2
votes: 22


PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:17 pm Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Reply with quote

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.




Close Combat's most infamous SOB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website GameRanger Account
 
platoon_michael

Rep: 47.6
votes: 25


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:31 am Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Reply with quote

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"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message GameRanger Account
 
US_Brake

Rep: 24.2
votes: 22


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:22 am Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Reply with quote

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.




Close Combat's most infamous SOB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website GameRanger Account
 
AT_Stalky

Rep: 27.4
votes: 10


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:48 am Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Reply with quote

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?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
AT_Stalky

Rep: 27.4
votes: 10


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 12:04 pm Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
platoon_michael

Rep: 47.6
votes: 25


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 12:25 pm Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message GameRanger Account
 
platoon_michael

Rep: 47.6
votes: 25


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:39 pm Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Reply with quote

Be nice to have a separate thread debating Strategic Maps and Force Pools.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message GameRanger Account
 
Tejszd

Rep: 133.6
votes: 19


PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:30 am Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
AT_Stalky

Rep: 27.4
votes: 10


PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:04 pm Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
US_Brake

Rep: 24.2
votes: 22


PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:57 pm Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Reply with quote

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:  9847 Time(s)

commonsense.jpg






Close Combat's most infamous SOB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website GameRanger Account
 
AT_Stalky

Rep: 27.4
votes: 10


PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:20 pm Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
US_Brake

Rep: 24.2
votes: 22


PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:02 pm Post subject: Re: split up deployment zones in a meeting engagement? Reply with quote

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:  9819 Time(s)

missioncreep.jpg






Close Combat's most infamous SOB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website GameRanger Account
 
 
Post new topicReply to topic printer-friendly view Close Combat Series Forum Index -> The Mess -> Tech Support
Goto page 1, 2, 3  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!