Let static be static

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Let static be static

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 >> Let static be static

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Let static be static - 7/30/2010 3:14:47 PM

xe5

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

Static BGs get absorbed into regular Axis BGs when the regulars move onto the static BGs map. The only exception to this Im aware of is if the regular BG moves onto a static BG map as an arriving reinforcement and that regular BG moves elsewhere on the same turn it arrived.

I'd prefer that static BGs dont get absorbed unless the player chooses to merge a static BG into a regular BG. Otherwise, treat the static BG like a regular BG for stacking purposes (eg. max capacity = 1 static + 1 regular Axis BG) When a static BG and a regular Axis BG are stacked in battle, the static BG should assume a 'Rest' posture. If the regular Axis BG loses the map, the static BG is destroyed. The static BG remains in place when the regular Axis BG leaves the map. If the regular Axis BG exits a map that is being contested, the static BG should inherit the existing partial Axis map control.

The problem with static BGs getting absorbed is shown below. Four turns ago Graebner moved onto Nijmegen Bridge, primed the bridge, absorbed the map's static BG, and annihilated the US para BG that arrived from Beek. Then Graebner moved off to fight other battles leaving Nijmegen Bridge undefended. IRL, at a minimum he would have left a garrison on the map, if only some rear echelon types dragooned into service and handed the detonator. These REMFs would represent a static BG being left in place after the regular Axis BG moved on.

Attachment (1)

Post #: 1

RE: Let static be static - 7/30/2010 8:28:37 PM

TheReal_Pak40

Posts: 186
Joined: 10/8/2003
Status: offline

Excellent point. What they really need to implement in this game is the option to split or re-split a battlegroup, at least ones that have previously been forcefully or optionally merged. I'm not sure why this was left out of the design of the game. It could have been easily implemented and made the game that much richer and more realistic.

(in reply to xe5)

Post #: 2

RE: Let static be static - 7/30/2010 10:35:52 PM

Andrew Williams

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

It's on our sonar

I'll quote a post from before release

quote:

For the first time I've gotten to day two as the Germans in the GC

Finding the German Static BG's that hold their ground on day one get absorbed into the arriving mobile German BG's

So far these static BG's are holding their own against the allied paratroops but are disappearing as the mobile BG's arrive and absorb them.

Do the static BG's need to be absorbed when a real BG arrives?

Rink arriving on Best is a perfect example.

My static Bg is holding the Best bridge with relative ease... along comes Rink and absorbs the static BG.

now if I move Rink on to the next map the Static troops move with him leaving BEST undefended... ridiculous in my opinion.

I'd even think it plausible that Rink, for instance, would leave reinforcements for the static BG on the way through to the next map.

(in reply to TheReal_Pak40)

Post #: 3

RE: Let static be static - 7/31/2010 1:41:37 AM

xe5

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

Sounds like it in earlier versions the static BGs got absorbed the moment the reinforcing BG entered the strat area. At least now if you move Rink somewhere else the turn he arrives, the Best static BG remains.

Love the static BG concept. Working on a mod to add static BGs to almost all the maps. No more free rides on vacant maps for the Allies. The locked deploy locations in the static file, ala CC2, can be used for all static teams and could lead to some interesting set piece single scenarios.

(in reply to Andrew Williams)

Post #: 4

RE: Let static be static - 7/31/2010 5:48:28 AM

D.Ilse

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

another thought..having a Mobile BG go to a static and leave units to assist the static BG hold the objective.

like have KG Rink leave some grenadier sqds and mortar/mgs at best with the static group to bolster defenses there.

_____________________________

(in reply to xe5)

Post #: 5

RE: Let static be static - 7/31/2010 12:53:25 PM

GS_Schimpf

Posts: 66
Joined: 3/21/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

More inter-BG micromanagement would be a great addition to the series. I second your above thoughts!

(in reply to D.Ilse)

Post #: 6

RE: Let static be static - 8/1/2010 10:58:02 PM

CSO_Talorgan

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

... and I third them!

(in reply to GS_Schimpf)

Post #: 7

Graebner at Nijmegen Bridge - 8/1/2010 11:22:25 PM

xe5

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

mmm...may have been too hasty to criticize the AI's control of Graebner. So it leaves Nijmegen Bridge undefended while Graebner motors down to Dreihuizen to boot 1/505 into oblivion. Hearing the bridge has been seized, Graebner motors back, re-takes control of the bridge and re-primes it. (Coming and going thru Beek to avoid absorbing the static BG in Nijmegen). Graebner's vehicles only patrol the bridge so there is no way my two zooks can get at them. If I cashed in to buy a 57mm, 508th PIR would have an AT gun and two rifle teams in it's BG.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to CSO_Talorgan)

Post #: 8

RE: Graebner at Nijmegen Bridge - 8/2/2010 2:21:21 AM

jomni

Posts: 2827
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

More inter BG micromanagement will lead to more complication that the AI cannot take advantage of.
(Except the idea of keep static as static).

_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to xe5)

Post #: 9