[platoon_michael]

Thank-You Pzt_Crackwise

I don't see any discussion on Tactics either when Stwa shows an Airfield Map with no cover,looks to be no support and pretty much charging his men to the area he needs to capture.
That's not a tactic,that just follows under the category of it is what it is.

In the Omaha map I can't figure out what side he is playing.
Axis: No real tactics there as they have 5 Tanks and an AT_Gun well positioned to stop anything.
Allies: Well he's screwed,unless he can destroy them all.

[AT_Stalky]

I don’t believe that there is a straight forward tactical fight culture in the H2H community. The key is to change the tactics or logical objectives all the time and be inconsistent to a degree so one is not predictable. That’s the road to being successful in H2H in the long run, IMO.

Playing the AI, is how 99% of the people experience CC. There must be some thing there that offers some grate player experience, or ppl would not bother play this game. How one chose to play it, is no concern of me, as long as one get some good time out of it.
Though, if a player experience that he can’t get a thrill out of the AI, then he have two options, get a vet mod. That will keep him at his toes for some time. And in the end, if that don’t do it, then one can only turn to the H2H games or scrap the game.

The H2H games is also social to a degree, that offers revards that that AI can never offer. That dimension of the H2H game should not be forgotten in the debate imo.  

Just my thoughts.




That was my short description of H2H game play, for a longer more boring explanation of my H2H experience, click the button:

Hidden: 

I believe the AI is limited in its ability to make tactical combat plans. I spent some time looking in to that some years ago, where I had enabled me to see the enemy all the time just to study what the AI did. If I remember right, the number of plans AI draw up was few. The tactics poor.

Playing a human is another thing all together. The human deliberately make diverse battle plans to confuse and fool the opponent.
The human player also is subject to his own confusion and inconsistency where the battle plans and implementations take on different form depending on an infinite number of variables.

The battles fought in H2H is mostly (99%??) of grand campaign or larger multiple map characteristics. This means that the objective on a map is not nominal as simple VL points, but its instead real objectives that matters, perhaps a hill, that line of hedges, or that side of a street with stone houses, or that exit vl where supplies come through, or the enemy held exit VL where im to sneak out this BG through behind his lines, etc..  
This adds to above mentioned confusion, because what the human opponent have as his grand strategy will also affect what and how he plays just this map with this BG..

The human player, must take all this into account, and form a plan and execute it. Adding several layer of fog to it. The opponent must try to figure out all the above mentioned and adopt his plan to it.. Some plans are straightforward and fully transparent at least on the strategic layer and what the opponent must or ought to do.  The tactic implementation is then more clerked for reasons mentioned. The objectives that are not as straightforward are much harder to figure out and understand how it will play out in the tactical layer.  

As the fight starts, the tactics in it self the human player is better or extremely much better than the AI.

/Stalk

[Stwa]

[AT_Stalky]

[AT_Stalky]

[Stwa]

The Multiplayer Ladder Seeks to Provide a Unidimensional Experience

In its heyday, the Multiplayer Ladder was a way for players to seek competitive rankings amongst one another in a community of gamers.

It was not all together a bad idea, but its very nature insured a singlular, unidimensional game experience.

Of course, that was the straight up tactical fight, where forces were roughly equal. This idea (in theory) was an attempt to be sure the rankings would reflect the skill of the individual players.

To be sure, many players enjoyed this experience until it ran dry. Never mind, some of its more ugly facets (like overestimating ones ablity), forced many sites to employ scads of social conduct rules.

[AT_Stalky]

Yep, the ladder game was how the CC was first enjoyed in H2H.
The ladder evolved into community organized competitions on set maps and sometimes individual and sometimes in groups.

Committing to a GC was often seen as impossible as it took several hundred of games to complete. The internet flimsy world was not the ideal for that..

So there was very few GC being played back then. The change from ladder to GC was perhaps a result of the developing social “structure” of the community. Where the ladder games made us know each others, formed a community with known names / persons.

Relations formed during the ladder years and the GC took over as the means to play H2H as it offers a more diverse game experience. Yep, in that sense the ladder “unidimentional” game was boring, endless repetition that offered not more than the “exit” button after the game, and at best a reported game victory. Thats why its totaly gone today.

Again, I go back to the social dimension of the H2H game; it’s a part of the positive side of a human opponent. Its not only about game preformance.

Just my thoughts.

[Stwa]

Multiplayer Games Have Simplistic Victory Conditions

Generally, these conditions are just the ones provided by the game itself, which usually means the player capturing the most Victory Locations wins. In addition the VL ownership between players would help classify a overall victory status (i.e. Major, Minor, Total, etc...)

There is nothing wrong with this per se, but before too many games elapse, even Noobs start to see the flaws inherint in this system. With Single Player games, one is free to impose any additional and unrestricted victory conditions that the game system itself does not provide.

Now, that is not to say, that two multiplayers that are familiar with one another might not impose additional victory conditions to add spice to a game. I am sure it has happened, but consider the Multiplayer Ladder again, which actively works against such provisions.

As I stated previously, I knew this thread would take more setup time than most. Just a few more posts regarding Multiplayer and we can proceed into the discussion of Single Player tactical considerations and various modes of play.

[AT_Stalky]

Stwa, as far as I know, the ladder game in CC is dead. For CC3 it was dead in 2001, and in CC5 it died like in 2004 or 5. The strongest ladder community is the CC2 community who are still at it to a degree, but no ladder games played there at all over several days now….

My impression is that the single game play in CC H2H is not happening.

Most if not all H2H is in GC games. None or very few construct there “own” GC or OPs and such, ppl use the stock GC delivered with the mod or game. This ensure the GC is tested and balanced, as it’s a major undertaking to commit to a GC lasting several hundred games. And a mistake in the construction of an own made GC will be fatal and a huge mess and disappointment.

Many ppl go back 10 years or more. Many run the GC from both sides, that ensure a clear winner can be considered. Though, I suppose the reward is in the games in them self and to challenge one self and do the best one can with what one got is reward enough.
Like a golf game, one can feel like a winner when one beaten once own handicap ie: preformed well against a good opponent, or preformed well at a hard map, or preformed well in a battle where once units was much poorer than the opponents. Etc etc. I don’t believe there’s just a single homogeny victory condition in a GC, it’s down to individuality.

And the idea that VL is what matters in a GC, is not really so for me and for the experienced GC players. The VL are nominal values, in a GC the nominal VL are of no importance. The importance in a GC is the real valued locations. As in a height, a ridge, a village that give protection, a hedge line, perhaps some bunkers, and the only VL that are important and have real values are the exits where the supplies come through, and where one can move out from into whatever map one have plans to move to at the strategic level.
This refers to CC4-5 strategy level. I suppose thats why them games are so popular?

/S

[Stwa]

Hi Stalky,

I can see from your posts that you understand what I am saying (and where I am going with this thread). Maybe single game H2H will return when Slitherene releases PITF.

You make some great points, and you are lucky in the sense that you have made great friends in the community (like Dima), and you guys could both take the time to play a GC.

I also know you guys like both the strategic and tactical aspects of CC, and are the types of players that would benefit most from H2H play of any kind. Unfortunately, not everyone can get the time for a H2H Campaign.  I have started several CC5 campaigns, but never finished one.

At my house, we have done some single player H2H, and it can be a great experience, but for the real stuff, we go with no VLs (or just a few invisible ones), no time limit, and a "stay down" AI. The goal is to flush him out, without getting your teams shot up in the process. Having a squad shot up or a vehicle destroyed means defeat.

As far as I know, there is still some CC2 Ladder Stuff maybe over at Tournament house, and it was my intention to mention all aspects of CC H2H past and present. I think the final point, when made, will put the wraps on why H2H stuggles at least with these game titles.

[AT_Stalky]

Sounds cool Stwa. My son is 9 now, and he’s sort of showing some signs that CC may be for him to. I hope.. But the competition from other games are fearce. Star Wars Battlefront, and strategy games like Anno...  

The GC I refer to started in 2008, we are still at it. Back some 5-10 years we rushed through several GC simultaneous with many opponents. Then: jobs, kids, and.. well, all the reasons why most ppl don’t play H2H came in between… No wonder AI opponent dominates the CC-games played.
Hopefully, we shall continue the GC again this summer. That’s the plan anyway…

Thanks for the threads Stwa

/S

[dgfred]

[Stwa]

Usually, Multiplayer Games are Played on a standardized Time Limit

This may really be a function of the CC game the participants are using, since I am not altogether sure if any CC game beyond CCMT will allow a game with NO time limit.

To be sure, Human Beings place a premium upon those players that can think accurately and quickly. And so they should. But with a game as complex as CC, time limits may in most circumstances relegate the games to a gladiatorial regime, where the map you are playing on serves as the collosium or arena.

This gladiatorial regime favors the quick click fest, and its resluting carnage. This is perfect for competition style games, but just how realistic is this. Is taking 30 percent casualties or more, what your commander envisioned, when he ordered you to take the objectives.

The real answer here, is it depends. If its Omaha Beach, thats one thing, but quite another if its the Radar Station at Cardonville.

However, the real pisser of using time limts, is missing out on the individual soldier actions that occur all over the battlefield, as each soldier or vehicle is locked into its own drama of life and death in CC. If you recall the Dasburg battle on page 1 at the top of the thread, I itemized just a few of the these events that I witnessed during the course of the battle. Undoubtably, there were many more.

[Stwa]

Multiplayer Games Provide a Social Construct for its Participants

Believe it or not, this is the good news and the BAD news as well. The old adage being, choose your opponents wisely.

Nevertheless, many people find even limited social constructs on the internet to be a satisfying experience.

Playing against an AI can sometimes produce a hollow, dull feeling, that can be perceived as physical in nature.

Sometimes, I get that feeling when I am playing even solitaire or chess against an AI opponent.

Multiplayer games provide UNCONTROLLED immersion (because there are 2 players), which is the instant remedy for these kind of feelings.

But what I have discovered over time, is that most people want to dictate (or control) the level of immersion, that satisfies them, at any given moment. And of course this can only be accomplished when playing against the AI.

[Stwa]

Multiplayer Games Can Never Provide a Complete CC Experience

I suppose, there could be those players that would categorically reject any or all games against the AI. It sounds good in theory, but I will bet it is rare in practice.

Some CC games allow gamers to construct very challenging missions against the AI, where other games are limited. For instance with CCMT, one can easily create missions that just cannot be won by the Human Player. I presented the Tare Green battle on page 2 as an exageration to this point.

If your game allows for these facets, then the Human Player can design away, developing missions that will satisfy an immersion level that is appropriate for that player, or will allow for the player to assume various paces or postures during the game itself.

Most players will involve themesleves in the latter, where some players will find challenging Multiplayer games as a supplement to the total CC experience.

[Stwa]

Whew   The setup for this thread took almost 3 pages.

The longest of any Noob thread I have ever attempted. I hope people will still follow because I intend to discuss Single Player (modes of play) and basic tactics (or actually common sense) stuff for single players, even those who are naturally layed back in their approach.

If you can accept the premise offered in the previous post, then you might find what follows interesting. I will rephrase the premise  

If it is possible for a human player to design a mission or operation that is impossible for the human player to win, then it is possible to create a variable and challenging AI through the same process.

[platoon_michael]

Hey Frasier.......


Does Lillith know you hang out here?

[Stwa]

I haven't seen her since she split for the eco-pod.

Besides, I thought she was with you now, thank god.  

[Stwa]

HP Defender - AI Hopeless Attacker

You would be shocked how many players deliberately use this game mode. For years on end, from time to time, I would see forumites complain about how the AI refused to attack their impregnable fortified positions.

In our example, to get the attackers to run to the seawall, you may have to insure that each attacking team has the highest morale possible. Otherwise, they may cower around the tank obstacles, forcing you to shoot them up at longer ranges.

With CCMT, it is generally much harder to get troops to advance in the first place, and almost impossible if they are under any form of sustained fire. So, knowing your game system is helpful in predicting the behavior of the attackers.

These games are fun for the Single Player that likes to anihilate the attackers. Here Single Players aren't required to do anything except deploy the troops into their defenses.

Once done, you can hit Begin and just sit back and watch the carnage.  You can add a few tanks to your battlegroup. You really only need a few, to stop the attack cold.

If your battle editor allows you to define the exact location and size of the deployment zones you can vary the zones proximity to one another and this will create what appears to be more urgency on the part of the attackers.

Common sense tactics involve deployment into the avaiable defenses. Usually that means dispersing your machine guns into covered areas like pill boxes, etc. Rifle teams into the trenches, and set any tanks slightly back to foil any zooka teams that feel lucky.

You will need to scatter (usually 2-6) Victory Locations into the deployment areas of the defenders. Do not place VLs in the deployment zone of the attackers, and this should help get the attackers moving toward the available VLs.

If your game system doesn't allow modifcation to the number and location of the VLs, AI behavior will be more eratic or perhaps unrealistic. The AI usually tries to capture VLs, because the AI is under the impression that whoever captures the most VLs wins the game. Please remember for CC4, CC5, WAR, TLD, and LSA, some of the VLs are there to support the Campaign Game, and really have much less meaning when attempting a single game.

[Stwa]

AI Defender - HP Hopeless Attacker

The exact antithesis of the game mode presented above. And I will recall the Tare Green scenario again (on page 2), where the clever AI was able to use a force comprised of 10 Panzer IVs and several AT guns to totally repulse an American landing using infantry forces only.

The Tare Green Scenario was a deliberate overstatement. But the AI just doesn't need that much force to anihilate the HP Attacker. In fact, for this example, I have just reversed sides, using the same Uncle Red scenario shown above. So, the AI has a pair of tanks and the usual static infantry types the Germans historically used at the beachheads. The HP Americans get all green infantry, and their only hope is to somehow knock out the German tanks without getting creamed.

This game mode is for the Single Player, who doesn't mind being humilated by an AI, that is usually described by Multiplayers as totally lame. At least you won't have to suffer through the obligitory albeit politically correct apre battle chat, where your Multiplayer opponent will insist on analyzing ever second of the match.

Common sense tactics would normally include provisions to conceal an approach by your zooka teams, once the enemy tanks have been located.   Apart from that, you can try spreading teams out, so they cant be collectively pinned by the withering fire. Try to avoid the barbed wire and minefields as well. Keep MG teams back, so they can set up and provide some noise or protection for your doomed advance to the seawall.