Managing The Front Line

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Managing The Front Line

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: Last Stand Arnhem >> Managing The Front Line

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Managing The Front Line - 7/26/2010 5:32:18 PM

Peterk1

Posts: 121
Joined: 5/4/2003
Status: offline

I should confess that I'm playing the Longest day instead of Arnhem right now, but I thought I'd post it here since there's more activity at the moment and I'm sure the issues are exactly the same.

One of the things I find I'm loving about CC is the little puzzle during set-up where you have to figure out how to guard the entire map and VC's with only the 15 units you have. It's often a huge challenge. I'm playing the Grand Campaign against the AI with a little honor system where I decide the configuration of my group on the first battle on a given map and I don't reconfigure it until the battle ends. Sometimes I find I screwed up - not enough infantry, too many useless units present) and I switch places with another group which is configured better for that particular battle.

I'm trying to be pretty careful about managing the front line so I usually have the shortest possible line to defend at scenario start and I'm also trying to minimize the dark areas behind my front line. A couple of questions and maybe suggestions.

1. I've been experimenting with using bazooka teams to convert the dark areas at the edges of my set-up that I'm not happy with, but I suspect that the control has not been flipping. Am I correct that small AT teams can't be used to flip territory?

2. I'm also finding that a lot of the time the "bonus" territory that I'm getting when the opponent morale breaks is not all that useful. Yes, I get extra flags, but I find a lot of time it really doesn't make sense to try to defend those flags if the AI has lots of scope to set up on the flanks and even in the rear.

I'm wondering if maybe a better bonus (it kind of makes more sense too) for the player who won via a morale break might be to clear up or eliminate some of those dark pockets occurring within the players lines. Expand the control from the flags already possessed rather than giving new flags. That way he can do a nice set-up on the next battle without having to worry about being ambushed from behind.

And an unrelated question. In a campaign, is there anyway for one battlegroup to take over for another battlegroup which is in a battle for a sector without having to enter from an edge and losing control of any VC flags? I'm finding it pretty painful to reinforce groups that are low morale or running low on ammo because it means giving up a lot of the previous gains.

< Message edited by Peterk1 -- 7/26/2010 5:44:14 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Managing The Front Line - 7/26/2010 6:33:57 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

Re: #1 - yes you are correct. Snipers are the only ones that can't iirc. I might be wrong on that though. I know snipers can't take VL's but not sure about claiming terrain. Anecdotally speaking they don't seem to effect territory control much.
Re: #2 - The only advantage to defending those awarded VL's is the boost to morale the better victory conditions give you.

Re: extra bonus deploy on morale break awards - Something worth considering. I can think of a few pros and cons. It's amazing how changing one thing can effect the entire design. A lot that has to be taken into account.

Re: relieving BG's - Are there specific examples you can illustrate this with. I can envision what you're talking about but perhaps there's an specific issue that needs looking at? I know Steve put considerable thought into how this aspect of the game works. Would have to ask him about the logic to understand the give and take the design had to account for.

(in reply to Peterk1)

Post #: 2

RE: Managing The Front Line - 7/26/2010 7:39:14 PM

Peterk1

Posts: 121
Joined: 5/4/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball

Re: extra bonus deploy on morale break awards - Something worth considering. I can think of a few pros and cons. It's amazing how changing one thing can effect the entire design. A lot that has to be taken into account.

Hi Oddball thanks for the quick reply. I'm a programmer myself and have no problem envisioning unforeseen consequences. My idea here was simply to reward good play by the player with getting rid of those backwards black areas that the AI loves to deploy in. You get a much better fight when the sides square off facing one another and the rear actions are minimized, so I think it would actually result in a higher percentage of satisfying battles for the player.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball

Re: relieving BG's - Are there specific examples you can illustrate this with. I can envision what you're talking about but perhaps there's an specific issue that needs looking at? I know Steve put considerable thought into how this aspect of the game works. Would have to ask him about the logic to understand the give and take the design had to account for.

I'd have to wait until I get home to generate some screengrabs, but basically (and I'm using Longest Day as my reference here):

I have an airborne group attacking in a sector.
After a few battles I notice that their ammo is getting low and I decide to replace them with an infantry group off the beaches.
On the strategic map I move the airborne group into the sector where the infantry group is and vice-versa.

The swap does work and the setup areas are not affected in any way. But, the flags I used to possess now flip to unclaimed and my reinforcing group has to enter from a map edge. So the enemy can now do a nice rush against the undefended flags and flip some territory over while the player moves in from the edge/corner to claim his old positions.

It would be nice to be able to have a new group take over the position seamlessly if they're swapping sectors with one another on the strategic map.

Now that I think about it, it's probably intentional to associate a cost to the maneuver and to stop players from flip-flopping their groups constantly since the Allies have quite a few "free" groups to play with. But somehow the way it is now doesn't feel very realistic. Typically, this sort of thing would be done under cover of darkness and the front line wouldn't be affected very much.

< Message edited by Peterk1 -- 7/26/2010 8:04:18 PM >

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 3

RE: Managing The Front Line - 7/26/2010 9:54:44 PM

chiroho

Posts: 33
Joined: 7/9/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Peterk1

I'd have to wait until I get home to generate some screengrabs, but basically (and I'm using Longest Day as my reference here):

I have an airborne group attacking in a sector.
After a few battles I notice that their ammo is getting low and I decide to replace them with an infantry group off the beaches.
On the strategic map I move the airborne group into the sector where the infantry group is and vice-versa.

The swap does work and the setup areas are not affected in any way. But, the flags I used to possess now flip to unclaimed and my reinforcing group has to enter from a map edge. So the enemy can now do a nice rush against the undefended flags and flip some territory over while the player moves in from the edge/corner to claim his old positions.

It would be nice to be able to have a new group take over the position seamlessly if they're swapping sectors with one another on the strategic map.

Now that I think about it, it's probably intentional to associate a cost to the maneuver and to stop players from flip-flopping their groups constantly since the Allies have quite a few "free" groups to play with. But somehow the way it is now doesn't feel very realistic. Typically, this sort of thing would be done under cover of darkness and the front line wouldn't be affected very much.

This does work quite differently in LSA because you can now have two battlegroups on the same map. If you "move" a second battlegroup in, it becomes the supporting group, but if you "attack" in a second battlegroup, it becomes the lead battlegroup on the map. And while you do end up not being able to deploy anywhere on the map, you do get all of the same victory locations as held and can deploy anywhere near them.

So this is a significant improvement from TLD where you pretty much had to wait until the map was captured before moving in a second battlegroup, else risk having to retake large sections of the map.

(in reply to Peterk1)

Post #: 4

RE: Managing The Front Line - 7/26/2010 10:12:55 PM

xe5

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline

AT teams will "flip" map territory and VL control. Snipers will not.

The issue of relief in place manuevers (swapping BGs on a map) is different between tLD and LSA because LSA lets you stack BGs, and switch which stacked BG attacks, where tLD doesnt. Thus, in tLD, where previously controlled territory and VLs become no-man's land when you swap BGs, the pic below illustartes the dramatic difference between 'swapping' BGs in LSA, and a 'relief in place' manuever where a new BG takes over the attack and the original BG stays in support. The relief in place action actually gains map territory without a fight for the new attacking BG, where swapping BGs is worse than tLD because only previously controlled VLs become neutral. The rest of the map, outside of the map entry deploy area, falls to enemy control.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by xe5 -- 7/26/2010 10:13:05 PM >

(in reply to Peterk1)

Post #: 5

RE: Managing The Front Line - 7/26/2010 10:20:09 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

This looks like the same issue to the other thread where deploy area is being discussed. I'll reference this post as well for Steve.

(in reply to xe5)

Post #: 6

RE: Managing The Front Line - 7/26/2010 11:50:41 PM

Peterk1

Posts: 121
Joined: 5/4/2003
Status: offline

Thanks for all the replies guys and especially for that nice illustrated example of the double groups in the latest game.
Will give the AT guys a closer look when scouting - I might very well have been mistaken about thinking they didn't flip terrain.

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 7

RE: Managing The Front Line - 7/27/2010 5:56:25 AM

D.Ilse

Posts: 330
Joined: 5/2/2009
From: Florahduh, yea that state.
Status: offline

Don't feel bad, I'm playing the TLD right now too, til LSA gets patched.

_____________________________

(in reply to Peterk1)

Post #: 8

RE: Managing The Front Line - 8/1/2010 9:51:01 PM

CSO_Talorgan

Posts: 768
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Peterk1

Will give the AT guys a closer look when scouting - I might very well have been mistaken about thinking they didn't flip terrain.

Were they of low "quality"?

I've seen small, low quality, non-scout teams being unable to flip victory locations. On the other hand, large, veteran, scout groups (only available through modding) carve great swathes across the battlefield.

(in reply to Peterk1)

Post #: 9

RE: Managing The Front Line - 8/2/2010 1:38:44 AM

Peterk1

Posts: 121
Joined: 5/4/2003
Status: offline

This was in tLD on the Le Port Brehay map so I think they would have been green US paratroopers' BAZ teams.
I'm still fighting on that frikking map after 5-6 battles!!

(in reply to CSO_Talorgan)

Post #: 10

RE: Managing The Front Line - 8/4/2010 8:38:23 PM

CSO_Talorgan

Posts: 768
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline

... So small, low quality and non-scout.

(in reply to Peterk1)

Post #: 11