RE: Armor and heavy support

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Armor and heavy support

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat - Cross of Iron >> RE: Armor and heavy support

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Armor and heavy support - 2/23/2007 9:11:27 PM

Uncle_Joe

Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Once upon a time there was an explanation on the point system that went something like this:

http://users.stargate.net/~mcconmy/Req.htm

Wow, thats a lot of info! Thanks for the link. I'm not overly clear on exactly what it is telling me though.

From what I gather, it does indeed 'handicap' based on force strength. What I dont fully understand is the 1/7 modifier. Does selecting a difficulty for Even/Even help eliminate this handicap?

I understand the need for some handicapping to keep the game interesting...wiping out the enemy force and then seeing only a command squad and an MG for the next 3 scenarios isnt going to be very challenging. But from what I've seen in game, the handicaps appear to be HUGE. I might have 1-2 tanks, but the AI is consistantly coming out with 5-6. And if mine are killed (so my 'force strength' is down), that doesnt seem to impact the AI and keep it from still buying those 5-6 tanks.

Finally, the bottom of that article appears somewhat skeptical that the formulae presented are actually working the way the designers apparently intended. Has this formula been double-checked and tested for CoI or could it still have the potential 'bugs' that that article might be implying?

Thanks again for the info. I'm going to fire up a new campaign using the Even/Even difficulty and see if that helps. I REALLY want to like this game again, but incessant armor spam just sucks the fun right out for me in short order. Anything that could resolve that would be a huge help IMO.

_____________________________

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)

Post #: 31

RE: Armor and heavy support - 2/24/2007 3:58:01 AM

Comrade_Blabsky

Posts: 79
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Austin, TX, USA
Status: offline

Even-even means that the AI gets the 1/7 additional points. You won't get rid of the tanks. On the point-allocation issue, there was never any real consensus that the game was wrong, just that the explanation might be backwards, or that the reasoning behind whatever formula was working regardless.

Big rule is that the map-entry points really affect the expected force strength through operations, and that in a campaign there is some cumulative effect as well. So the bottom line is that trial and error will give you a general idea of points being allocated in scenario and campaign design, but there are way too many variables to accurately predict points given to AI.

So....

Instead of taking out all the tanks like Knu did, lets design a "light" version of WF. We can turn it into a Mod Swap plugin to be used with WF installed.

Only files to change would be GETeams and RUTeams: all of the graphics, weapons, efx etc will be the same.

Some armor is wanted. Mk IV's were prevalent, so set that to 3 or 4. Same with Shermans. Set most of the support the same; the real heavy stuff to 1 or 0. Later in rarity, allow Tigers at 2 or 3, and cut the MkIV to 2.

The difficulty setting (recruit-vet-hero) is in play here. Obviously, 0 rarity will not be seen when "Historical Rarity" is checked in the Scenario.

Recruit setting will get 1's for you. Hero setting will get 1's for the AI.

But remember: if there are 10 different armor teams that have 1 in the same rarity period, the AI could choose 10 different armor teams along with a mortar and 3 infantry teams. It's how the game works. So keep choices limited to what you want to see appear in the AI's battlegroup.

In a Scenario, there is only 1 rarity period. So if for that rarity period, all armor was 0 except for MkIV at 2 and SS StuG's at 3, you would see only a few of them for all days of the scenario.

In a campaign more than one rarity period can be used. If you change availability from period to period, the AI will choose different new teams as the campaign progresses. However (and this is cool), if some crewmembers survive they should be able to refit---even if rarity is 0.

A full mod like Zonbie's WF is chock full of wonderful units (and, WF is most assuredly an armor-lover's dream). Most mods will cram as many different teams as will fit. And this is a good thing! In the Cross of Iron, we have the great Mod Swap to use sub-mods that can be tailored to whatever forces you want to see throughout a campaign. Campaigns are fun to make. Modding is fun. These are good things too.

Now, discuss among yourselves. I'll help however I can.

_____________________________

Nothing can defeat the will of the People.

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)

Post #: 32

RE: Armor and heavy support - 2/26/2007 3:59:52 PM

namzo6

Posts: 26
Joined: 2/21/2007
Status: offline

As much as I love armor,it'd be cool to have a submod that only allows 3or4 tanks on the board for either side.It'd be a nice changeup.I know the Real Inf mod does that to an extent,however maybe adjusting that so one could have their 3 tanks being heavier caliber.

that's my 2 cents worth,and I'd like some change back.

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)

Post #: 33

RE: Armor and heavy support - 2/26/2007 4:49:41 PM

Beeblebrox

Posts: 200
Joined: 10/27/2006
Status: offline

There are mods that deal with these kinds of things

(in reply to namzo6)

Post #: 34

RE: Armor and heavy support - 2/26/2007 5:00:04 PM

namzo6

Posts: 26
Joined: 2/21/2007
Status: offline

Heya Beeble,are there any submods that can be installed with COI that allow for that to be used with other mods?Digging through my REALPACK folder,there are plugins,however can I use them with COI?I'd imagine I'd have to have the main mod installed,is Realred COI ready?

Thanx

(in reply to Beeblebrox)

Post #: 35

RE: Armor and heavy support - 2/26/2007 5:28:48 PM

Beeblebrox

Posts: 200
Joined: 10/27/2006
Status: offline

The only plugins tested for use with CoI are found in the Library at the link given from the Command Centre. All old Community Mods (even for CC3) will not work until upgraded for use with CoI.

There are no CoI Sub-Mods (schrecken?) though I am not up with all the details. West Front has CC3 Sub Mods for example, but I do not think there are any Sub-Mods for the CoI West Front yet, and to try and use a CC3 WF Sub Mod with a CoI WF installation is inviting disaster!

CoI is significantly based on RR. There is no CoI RR Plugin as such, though some of the RR derivatives may be upgraded in due course.

(in reply to namzo6)

Post #: 36

RE: Armor and heavy support - 2/26/2007 5:52:21 PM

namzo6

Posts: 26
Joined: 2/21/2007
Status: offline

Thanx for the info,appreciate it

(in reply to Beeblebrox)

Post #: 37

RE: Armor and heavy support - 2/26/2007 9:19:00 PM

Andrew Williams

Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline

The only sub-mods so far are the alternate campaigns.

Any suggestions for worthy sub-mods?

(in reply to namzo6)

Post #: 38

Armor turns into rusting hulks - 2/27/2007 12:12:24 AM

Comrade_Blabsky

Posts: 79
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Austin, TX, USA
Status: offline

I'll do a West Front Infantry mod if Zonbie and Schrecken want. Gotta wait a few days, I'm kinda busy right now....

_____________________________

Nothing can defeat the will of the People.

(in reply to Andrew Williams)

Post #: 39

RE: Armor turns into rusting hulks - 2/27/2007 12:42:42 AM

Andrew Williams

Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline

I think that would be worthy indeed.

(in reply to Comrade_Blabsky)

Post #: 40

RE: Armor turns into rusting hulks - 2/27/2007 2:23:31 AM

Pford

Posts: 235
Joined: 11/10/2006
Status: offline

What about that cool looking N. Africa mod?

(in reply to Andrew Williams)

Post #: 41

RE: Armor turns into rusting hulks - 2/27/2007 4:26:06 PM

namzo6

Posts: 26
Joined: 2/21/2007
Status: offline

A North Africa mod with mostly Italian units,but a FEW German units in the mix would be cool.I only say that 'cause no offence but Italy's units back then were pretty much junk.Maybe severely limited German resources like 1 tank available per op. in a camp.Same for Inf/art units.That'd make them more of a supporting force.

And PLEASE anyone making campaigns,try to make them at least 10 ops long.

When playing a camp,it takes me a few ops to get sucked in thouroughly.To have the camp end after 4 or 5 ops leaves me unfulfilled

(in reply to Pford)

Post #: 42

RE: Too much armor... - 6/25/2007 7:53:33 AM

helblazer

Posts: 7
Joined: 6/25/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: billiard

That was another area I liked about CCII - you had only so many "slots" for support, the rest were infantry. I found with my CCIII campaigns that I'd "hog" the big tanks to combat exactly what you speak of - the AI's propensity toward tanks. By the end of a grand campaign, I'd be down to 3 or 4 infantry teams and a Wurframen with the rest reserved for the Heavy tanks and Heavy tank destroyers just so I could keep up with the AI. When you add in the CCIII "cheat" (I don't know if COI has this or not) in which, if you'd decimated the AI team last campaign, they'd get the full recquisition points whilst you were limited to 50. I guess it was needed for game balance, but it sure was frustrating after a few operations.

CC2 went even further to limit armor from becoming anything more than infantry support because even Heavy MG, mortar and FT teams go into the six support slots. CC3 would have been better off had they kept the six slot support pool but lock it down to armor if they wanted to make it more tank focused. That way you would know at least that two thirds of your force would be infantry or field guns. They sort of went back to this in latter games I think but I hate the forcepool and prefer the point buy system.

< Message edited by helblazer -- 6/25/2007 7:54:25 AM >

(in reply to billiard)

Post #: 43