Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

What are HQ's and Command Tanks for?

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> What are HQ's and Command Tanks for? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
What are HQ's and Command Tanks for? - 3/7/2001 6:52:00 AM   
Yogi Yohan

 

Posts: 445
Joined: 7/28/2000
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline 		Can anybody enlighten me on the game benefits of having an HQ? In my campaigns I usually upgrade the A0 unit to a tank rather early on. Is this a mistake and if so, why? And how about command tanks? Do they have any special abilities?

_____________________________
Post #: 1
- 3/7/2001 8:46:00 AM   
MindSpy


Posts: 272
Joined: 5/13/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Yogi Yohan: Can anybody enlighten me on the game benefits of having an HQ? In my campaigns I usually upgrade the A0 unit to a tank rather early on. Is this a mistake and if so, why? And how about command tanks? Do they have any special abilities?
Command units are best represented in the game when the realism setting of command and control is selected to be set to "on". Without the setting the Command units have a reduced role in the game as it is running in arcade mode - units do what the palyers want at whatever loss rate the game can tolerate! however, should you turn on the "CC" ... You are now faced with a problem. As it is well known in the "real armed forces" that if you destroy or incapacitate an opposing units HQ or generally stated command structure, then you will have successfully reduced to eliminated the units ability to fight at all! They can then be hunted down -moped up- with greater ease and at a significant reduction of offensive power required! Even more importantly, the use of "CC" better reflects the historical capacities of formations. Well led Soviet tank co's are a menace to all they oppose if they do not have heavy firepower to combat them with! Poorly led ones cannot do as much and are generally brittle. Similarly for any formation on any Nationa Flag or other armed force. The Command and Control keep the unit together and outside the scope of this game supplied. Without them you cannot maintain the fighting posture of many elite units! Gotta go MindSpy

_____________________________


(in reply to Yogi Yohan)
Post #: 2
- 3/7/2001 9:07:00 AM   
Pack Rat

 

Posts: 594
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: north central Pennsylvania USA
Status: offline 		There might be another way to look at his questions Mindspy so I'll give it a shot in case it's so. A HQ unit used to be a unit that was nonmoveable (this is still true) and would allow units with in a their rally radius a chance to rally if they had failed. Having a unit like this in a "hot spot" would have its value. I used them in defend/delay settings. I never bought them or changed a unit to them in my core when I played campaigns. You'll see the term Command tank in the Brit oobs, maybe some others too. Very often a different type tank then the other ones in the unit and often better. So the advantage you gain from having them is just the tanks abailities, nothing more. Maybe a history student could tell us why they did it, because I don't know and anything I would guess probably wouldn't be nice I used to upgrade my HQ to a tank as well. It's strictly up to you. ------------------ PR http://electricwar.tripod.com/

_____________________________

PR

(in reply to Yogi Yohan)
Post #: 3
- 3/7/2001 9:37:00 AM   
USMCGrunt

 

Posts: 174
Joined: 1/17/2001
From: Yarmouth, ME, US
Status: offline 		One usual difference in a "Command" tank was the radio equipment. A unit commanders tank usually had at least one extra radio for comunnications between the unit and higher command. This was usually added at the expense of extra ammo. ------------------ USMCGrunt -When it absolutely, positively, has to be destroyed overnight.

_____________________________

USMCGrunt Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?" But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll! -Rudyard Kipling-

(in reply to Yogi Yohan)
Post #: 4
- 3/7/2001 9:58:00 AM   
Mike Rothery

 

Posts: 180
Joined: 10/9/2000
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by MindSpy: Without the setting the Command units have a reduced role in the game as it is running in arcade mode - units do what the palyers want at whatever loss rate the game can tolerate!
I think the CC model leaves a lot to be desired. It is way too rigid for most situations. You can't back up without issuing orders. You can't choose the route to an objective, you can only keep going in a straight line without spending points. Individual tank commanders and squad leaders should have more discretion than moving forward within a narrow cone. Yes, sure you shouldn't have platoons going off all over the place, but it is currently too restrictive and too costly in command points. One solution may be to give command units more points per turn, so that you can afford to "order" that tank destroyer to retreat back into the trees after it has fired, or send your squads around both sides of a stand of trees. Also calling multiple batteries of arty in on the same hex should count as one order. Repeat barrages should proably be free. Mike R

_____________________________

MikeR

(in reply to Yogi Yohan)
Post #: 5
- 3/7/2001 10:27:00 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		THe command system is something we aren;t going to muck with, right now the intenet is simply to get you to think about your units in platoon sized chunks and to "vector" them where you want them to go. The "confusion" that results when you run out of commands and your troops are "stuck" reflects in a simple but graphic way that you often get your troops in to situations that are tough to get out of. Players always want "max efficiency, that real troops could never deleiver! As to not backing up without issuing orders - We assume that troops instantly know to do the "right thing" when "the plan" goes in the crapper...just doesn't happen and the feeling that you "lost control" at a critical juncture and can't get the troops to do the exact things you want must have been a common feeling on the battlefield. I'm sure WWII battalion commanders would want a nickel for everytime they looked through the binoculars and said under their breath - "for God's sake retreat, RETREAT!! I know I said advance and take that hill, but not into THAT... Don't look at it as trying to simulate command control per se, but indicating in a simple, but I think rather elegant way, what can happen when the plan DOESN'T come, and the chaos that occurs trying to sort it out. That said it will be substantially different in Combat Leader, but to large extent becasuse its not IGO UGO. [This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited March 06, 2001).]

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Yogi Yohan)
Post #: 6
- 3/7/2001 3:30:00 PM   
MindSpy


Posts: 272
Joined: 5/13/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: THe command system is something we aren;t going to muck with, right now the intent is simply to get you to think about your units in platoon sized chunks and to "vector" them where you want them to go. The "confusion" that results when you run out of commands and your troops are "stuck" reflects in a simple but graphic way that you often get your troops in to situations that are tough to get out of. Players always want "max efficiency, that real troops could never deleiver! As to not backing up without issuing orders - We assume that troops instantly know to do the "right thing" when "the plan" goes in the crapper...just doesn't happen and the feeling that you "lost control" at a critical juncture and can't get the troops to do the exact things you want must have been a common feeling on the battlefield. I'm sure WWII battalion commanders would want a nickel for everytime they looked through the binoculars and said under their breath - "for God's sake retreat, RETREAT!! I know I said advance and take that hill, but not into THAT... Don't look at it as trying to simulate command control per se, but indicating in a simple, but I think rather elegant way, what can happen when the plan DOESN'T come, and the chaos that occurs trying to sort it out. [This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited March 06, 2001).]
MINDSPY Command and Control is quite simply very elegant in the game SPWAW. There is without doubt no reason it should not be set to 'on' when you want historical results. A formation is assigned to certain objectives and orders must be expended and objective hexes assigned to them for the player to get them there. It takes time to change units' postures and that is why units cannot do all that the "arcade" setting of 'off' Command and Control allows. It is essential that you know that when a tank or other unit is responsible for a unit that is larger than a platoon it cannot do the job of Command as well if it is to engage the enemy! As well Command tanks and other AFV's generally lacked the main armament of the standard issue AFV type. As well they contained extra radio's and personnel in the tanks. The extra radio's were largely as a result of the shorter range of the standard unit radio. To contact arty in the rear and higher HQ's also found in the rear the longer range of Command unit vehicles' radios is required and they are not normally present in the AFV's of the platoon in WW2. This is especially true of German and Soviet units. Now as a single tank cannot carry the entire Command staff required many WW2 formations have the remainng eesential staff members following along in halftracks or trucks. They are indded essential personnel as they have the Decoder's and other essential items required for disciplined multi-type-force-compositon co-ordination. Not the least of which is hands on knowledge of who is where and is what in the chain of command in other units belonging to the Army group or Division or Corp or Wing or etc. When you play with Command and Control 'on' you must remember that the movement and firing is accomplished by a limited number of units in the formation and that if you insist on having all the units move and fire including the command unit itself you are asking for trouble. To do it succesfully you must select objectives near the formation and remain committed to keeping the unit together so as not to overwhelm the Commanding unit with having to maintain contact with the out of LineOfSight units. It is very difficult to tell someone what to do when you cannot see them or what they have in front of them. To add the further complexity of requiring a commander to do so for many units and while under fire is quite simply a "use of poor tactics". Should you require setting objectives to greater distances thus depriving yourself of a tactical situation where there is greater freedom of movement in 360 degrees then you are clearly dealing with the normal range of problems of Command and Control. If you are surprised by an opponent while engaging in long swoops of movement then it is understood that many units will have great difficulty maintaining the freedom to do as they wish. They will also be very vulnerable until Command and Control has been re-established!!! Orders are orders. Without them you will have units seriously restricted in what they can do and they will generally stick to what they had been ordered to do as they are still following orders (granted that is the fundamental requirement of being a well-trained unit---however you should not confuse not being able to do all that meets the player's eye as a bad rule or setting; given time, that is more turns, your units will if their leaders are still in good order, be able to do the other things that can correct a situaion where the sh*% has hit the fan.). This is not only historical this is obvious. The player may be able to see the overall general situation and know that he must respond in such and so a manner but the individual units do not have the bigger picture and cannot "do" the doing until the orders come. Thus it is easy to see that by playing with Command and Control the players that not only recognize the movement and combat limitations of their units but also the time factor required to get them to perform the required task and movement will quite simply outperform those who see "CC" only as a hindrance lacking further insight to understand that indeed it reflects the real situation much more so then the game played with "CC" 'off' and that is why it is a Realism setting and not a General preference. It is quite understandable that there is resistance to playing with such a well qualified Realism setting. It requires more thought and ability then not! Playing without it is as much fun as becoming competent with Command and Control. However, I have little sympathy for the nay-sayers as it is akin to using trucks or command cars as recon (these vehicles are very susceptable to small arms fire and they did not pursue direct fire assignmnts and their value to the parent unit as providing supply and transport was quite simply too great for them to be abused in this manner! however for game play it appears to make snense although it has no basis in the historical record), choosing whatever units are cheapest in purchase points to lead an assault, and generally believing that a platoon's units placed in widely separated areas of the map can perform the same job as purchasing a section of the same units (clearly having talented individuals for com is import but having experienced and talented individuals is even more necessary-hence depleted units have great difficulty splitting into smaller units if they do not have the trained personnel to do so! which is why there are section vs platoon units to be selected). In summary. Command and Control is essential if you want a greater historical feel for your games. Command units can perform the same functions in rallying with or without the reaslism setting of "CC" turned on however you will find that your play is rewarded when you do turn the "CC" on as it is essential that your units remain in close contact for maximum effectiveness and that therefore the rallying bonuses and improved resistance to suppression related retreats and routs has increased as a result of your greater efforts to keep your units centred on the command units in the formation! MINDSPY

_____________________________


(in reply to Yogi Yohan)
Post #: 7
- 3/7/2001 3:30:00 PM   
MindSpy


Posts: 272
Joined: 5/13/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: THe command system is something we aren;t going to muck with, right now the intent is simply to get you to think about your units in platoon sized chunks and to "vector" them where you want them to go. The "confusion" that results when you run out of commands and your troops are "stuck" reflects in a simple but graphic way that you often get your troops in to situations that are tough to get out of. Players always want "max efficiency, that real troops could never deleiver! As to not backing up without issuing orders - We assume that troops instantly know to do the "right thing" when "the plan" goes in the crapper...just doesn't happen and the feeling that you "lost control" at a critical juncture and can't get the troops to do the exact things you want must have been a common feeling on the battlefield. I'm sure WWII battalion commanders would want a nickel for everytime they looked through the binoculars and said under their breath - "for God's sake retreat, RETREAT!! I know I said advance and take that hill, but not into THAT... Don't look at it as trying to simulate command control per se, but indicating in a simple, but I think rather elegant way, what can happen when the plan DOESN'T come, and the chaos that occurs trying to sort it out. [This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited March 06, 2001).]
MINDSPY Command and Control is quite simply very elegant in the game SPWAW. There is without doubt no reason it should not be set to 'on' when you want historical results. A formation is assigned to certain objectives and orders must be expended and objective hexes assigned to them for the player to get them there. It takes time to change units' postures and that is why units cannot do all that the "arcade" setting of 'off' Command and Control allows. It is essential that you know that when a tank or other unit is responsible for a unit that is larger than a platoon it cannot do the job of Command as well if it is to engage the enemy! As well Command tanks and other AFV's generally lacked the main armament of the standard issue AFV type. As well they contained extra radio's and personnel in the tanks. The extra radio's were largely as a result of the shorter range of the standard unit radio. To contact arty in the rear and higher HQ's also found in the rear the longer range of Command unit vehicles' radios is required and they are not normally present in the AFV's of the platoon in WW2. This is especially true of German and Soviet units. Now as a single tank cannot carry the entire Command staff required many WW2 formations have the remainng eesential staff members following along in halftracks or trucks. They are indded essential personnel as they have the Decoder's and other essential items required for disciplined multi-type-force-compositon co-ordination. Not the least of which is hands on knowledge of who is where and is what in the chain of command in other units belonging to the Army group or Division or Corp or Wing or etc. When you play with Command and Control 'on' you must remember that the movement and firing is accomplished by a limited number of units in the formation and that if you insist on having all the units move and fire including the command unit itself you are asking for trouble. To do it succesfully you must select objectives near the formation and remain committed to keeping the unit together so as not to overwhelm the Commanding unit with having to maintain contact with the out of LineOfSight units. It is very difficult to tell someone what to do when you cannot see them or what they have in front of them. To add the further complexity of requiring a commander to do so for many units and while under fire is quite simply a "use of poor tactics". Should you require setting objectives to greater distances thus depriving yourself of a tactical situation where there is greater freedom of movement in 360 degrees then you are clearly dealing with the normal range of problems of Command and Control. If you are surprised by an opponent while engaging in long swoops of movement then it is understood that many units will have great difficulty maintaining the freedom to do as they wish. They will also be very vulnerable until Command and Control has been re-established!!! Orders are orders. Without them you will have units seriously restricted in what they can do and they will generally stick to what they had been ordered to do as they are still following orders (granted that is the fundamental requirement of being a well-trained unit---however you should not confuse not being able to do all that meets the player's eye as a bad rule or setting; given time, that is more turns, your units will if their leaders are still in good order, be able to do the other things that can correct a situaion where the sh*% has hit the fan.). This is not only historical this is obvious. The player may be able to see the overall general situation and know that he must respond in such and so a manner but the individual units do not have the bigger picture and cannot "do" the doing until the orders come. Thus it is easy to see that by playing with Command and Control the players that not only recognize the movement and combat limitations of their units but also the time factor required to get them to perform the required task and movement will quite simply outperform those who see "CC" only as a hindrance lacking further insight to understand that indeed it reflects the real situation much more so then the game played with "CC" 'off' and that is why it is a Realism setting and not a General preference. It is quite understandable that there is resistance to playing with such a well qualified Realism setting. It requires more thought and ability then not! Playing without it is as much fun as becoming competent with Command and Control. However, I have little sympathy for the nay-sayers as it is akin to using trucks or command cars as recon (these vehicles are very susceptable to small arms fire and they did not pursue direct fire assignmnts and their value to the parent unit as providing supply and transport was quite simply too great for them to be abused in this manner! however for game play it appears to make snense although it has no basis in the historical record), choosing whatever units are cheapest in purchase points to lead an assault, and generally believing that a platoon's units placed in widely separated areas of the map can perform the same job as purchasing a section of the same units (clearly having talented individuals for com is import but having experienced and talented individuals is even more necessary-hence depleted units have great difficulty splitting into smaller units if they do not have the trained personnel to do so! which is why there are section vs platoon units to be selected). In summary. Command and Control is essential if you want a greater historical feel for your games. Command units can perform the same functions in rallying with or without the reaslism setting of "CC" turned on however you will find that your play is rewarded when you do turn the "CC" on as it is essential that your units remain in close contact for maximum effectiveness and that therefore the rallying bonuses and improved resistance to suppression related retreats and routs has increased as a result of your greater efforts to keep your units centred on the command units in the formation! MINDSPY

_____________________________


(in reply to Yogi Yohan)
Post #: 8
- 3/7/2001 3:57:00 PM   
Yogi Yohan

 

Posts: 445
Joined: 7/28/2000
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline 		Would I be correct to assume that the HQ and Command tank units have no benefits in GAME terms, even when playing with C&C on (which I always do) and if I use them instead of an MBT in the A0 slot, it's for realism reasons only? If so, I would suggest some tweaking here, say you get a few extra orders from these, or they reduce the chance of having off-board arty out of contact etc... [This message has been edited by Yogi Yohan (edited March 07, 2001).]

_____________________________


(in reply to Yogi Yohan)
Post #: 9
- 3/7/2001 4:10:00 PM   
MindSpy


Posts: 272
Joined: 5/13/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline 		MindSpy
quote:

Originally posted by Yogi Yohan: Would I be correct to assume that the HQ and Command tank units have no benefits in GAME terms, even when playing with C&C on (which I always do) and if I use them instead of an MBT in the A0 slot, it's for realism reasons only? If so, I would suggest some tweaking here, say you get a few extra orders from these, or they reduce the chance of having off-board arty out of contact etc... [This message has been edited by Yogi Yohan (edited March 07, 2001).]
MINDSPY Your assumption is incorrect. Command units tank or not provide significant "game benefits" There is no requirement that your AO unit be on foot or wheels or tracks. There is a general preference among the different forces depending on local or AFV supply what to ride in when the shooting starts. Historically many units did their own thing. Make it as you wish. But clearly if you are playing wiht"CC" /on/ then you must realize that your A) unit is a 'King type' piece and if you lose it during a crtical phase of your operations your whole plan could tumble with it's loss! MINDSPY

_____________________________


(in reply to Yogi Yohan)
Post #: 10
- 3/7/2001 5:50:00 PM   
murx

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline 		But then when talking of chain of command the player should be able to link it themselves. Single platoons/squads you buy are always linked to A0 as next higher (and highest) command. I would like to have my three PaK and Truck Platoons linked together as a company and then up to the Battallion command A0. The way C&C is now puts higher stress on A0 then it should. murx

_____________________________


(in reply to Yogi Yohan)
Post #: 11
- 3/7/2001 6:39:00 PM   
Yogi Yohan

 

Posts: 445
Joined: 7/28/2000
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by MindSpy: MindSpy MINDSPY Your assumption is incorrect. Command units tank or not provide significant "game benefits" There is no requirement that your AO unit be on foot or wheels or tracks. There is a general preference among the different forces depending on local or AFV supply what to ride in when the shooting starts. Historically many units did their own thing. Make it as you wish. But clearly if you are playing wiht"CC" /on/ then you must realize that your A) unit is a 'King type' piece and if you lose it during a crtical phase of your operations your whole plan could tumble with it's loss! MINDSPY
I think you misunderstand me. I understand there is a great benefit to having a A0 unit - at all. What I meant is, having the A0 unit as a HQ or command tank does not give any advantages as compared to having the A0 as a main battle tank?

_____________________________


(in reply to Yogi Yohan)
Post #: 12
- 3/7/2001 6:42:00 PM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline 		If you buy the unit as a complete company, it will come with a company commander located between the battalion and platoon leaders in the command chain. I do not think there is a way to build this structure out of platoons except in the OOB editor. Reg.

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to Yogi Yohan)
Post #: 13
- 3/7/2001 8:15:00 PM   
Mike Rothery

 

Posts: 180
Joined: 10/9/2000
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by MindSpy: It is quite understandable that there is resistance to playing with such a well qualified Realism setting. It requires more thought and ability then not! Playing without it is as much fun as becoming competent with Command and Control. However, I have little sympathy for the nay-sayers as it is akin to using trucks or command cars as recon
I'm not saying I'm against CC, what I'm saying is that the permissable movement cone is very arbitary, and should be reviewed. I would be happier with a cone that was broader at its base to allow you to negotiate terrain features, and allows movement 1 hex back to pull your nose out of danger. And on the point of realism, whilst the communication superiority of some forces is captured by the CC rules, doctrine was also a big influence on how sides fought. To get the complete authentic "feel" you need both. Some aspects of doctrine have been incorporated into the game at a micro level ie. Japanese units not retreating, but formation doctrine is up the players when playing a human opponent, and the AI when not. More items for the wish list..... MikeR

_____________________________

MikeR

(in reply to Yogi Yohan)
Post #: 14
- 3/7/2001 8:55:00 PM   
lnp4668

 

Posts: 517
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Arlington, TX, USA
Status: offline 		CC forces you to make plan around a coherent group. If your commander order his company to move toward an objective, his subordinates will attempts to do his best to move toward that objective. Thus the "cone of movement". If your units just go willy nilly wherever they want to, they will be a mob, not a coherent group. If you wants godlike total control, then CC should be off. If you wants to reflect the lacks of control a real commander have on the field, then turn on CC. BTW, I used to turn my A0 unit into a tank also, but then I realize that it is more effective in the back near the onboard artillery. This keeps the onboard artillery in contact, and you don't lose the ability to call artillery because your leader gots suppress.

_____________________________

"My friends, remember this, that there are no bad herbs, and no bad men; there are only bad cultivators." Les Miserables

(in reply to Yogi Yohan)
Post #: 15
- 3/7/2001 9:25:00 PM   
Larry Holt

 

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline 		Yogi, I did not see anyone mention that a HQ or zero unit (e.g. C0, etc.) also aids in rallying units. Keeping them near your main effort aids it by giving you another rally chance. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to Yogi Yohan)
Post #: 16
- 3/7/2001 10:35:00 PM   
Chris Evitts

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 9/10/2000
From: Carterville, IL
Status: offline 		I think you can form companies from independent platoons by buying a company and deleting it's platoons. Any new platoons bought then go into the slots previously filled by the deleted units, and will have that company commander as a leader.

_____________________________


(in reply to Yogi Yohan)
Post #: 17
- 3/8/2001 1:04:00 AM   
David F. Wall

 

Posts: 158
Joined: 5/25/2000
From: Waltham, MA, USA
Status: offline 		I think the one place where the command and control system kinda falls apart is in scenarios designed for a quick advance followed by a quick retreat. Consider a scenario where a player is charged with capturing several strategic objectives (the ones that only can be captured once) and then exiting the force off the map before the arrival of a significantly more powerful opposing force. Unless your troops all have recon ability, or you play with command and control off, the second part of that task is practically impossible unless you manage to build up enough orders again before the shooting starts, which can leave the scenario about as tense as a broken guitar string. I am not sure anything could be done about this, given the resources available and the limitations of the engine. One idea off the of of my head would be to issue a boost in available orders to the leader of a formation capturing a tactical objective, or to every leader on the side of a formation capturing a strategic objective (depending on the overall integrity of the chain of command, perhaps) to simulate the effect of "OK, we did what we were supposed to do. What's next?"

_____________________________


(in reply to Yogi Yohan)
Post #: 18
- 3/8/2001 2:18:00 AM   
Anatoly Chekov

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: UK
Status: offline 		When I designed my Nestegg scenario, which is basically a beach assault, I set CC2 on and playtested it that way. It was very difficult to get the infantry and engineers and supporting armour off the beach because they ran out of orders so quickly. The Commandos assaulting the cliffs didn't suffer from the same restrictions and were always available to move. During an email game CC2 got turned off and I left it like that because my opponent felt more comfortable. WOW, what a difference! The infantry shot off the beach and mopped up quite easily. It was more fun but hardly realistic. My advice is persevere with CC2 - you might not score any easy victories but you will appreciate them more. Having said that I've just completed the hard version of the Wild Bill's The Victors with CC2 off with decisive victories all the way. Now, dare I switch it on and start all over again? Can I cope with the failure?

_____________________________


(in reply to Yogi Yohan)
Post #: 19
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> What are HQ's and Command Tanks for? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.703