C&C (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

junk2drive -> C&C (1/27/2007 10:08:10 PM)

Is there a primer, tutorial, or "For Dummies" somewhere on playing with C&C on?

I tried a search of the Training section without luck.



KG Erwin -> RE: C&C (1/27/2007 10:22:56 PM)

Isn't an introduction to C&C included in the game manual?

The subject of using C&C has generated considerable controversy -- some swear by it, others (including yours truly) swear AT it. [;)]



vahauser -> RE: C&C (1/27/2007 11:12:44 PM)

junk2drive,

I am a veteran C&C ON player.  I will be happy to answer all of your C&C ON questions.  I learned the hard way by just playing lots of games with C&C ON starting way back in 1997 when SP-III was released.  Fire away with your questions.

--Victor



FlashfyreSP -> RE: C&C (1/27/2007 11:14:17 PM)

There's a section in the Manual that explains some of the aspects about C&C, but you really have to try a game (a small one, at first) to see it in action. The most common trouble players have is not planning their "mission" out and using the Orders and Objectives to achieve it.

Part of the problem also lies in the way the OOBs have been designed; too many formations have 6 or more units, and they ALL must be ordered by the Formation Leader unit. And he usually isn't in contact with all of them, or have enough Orders, to be able to command them effectively. A perfect example is the "motorized" formation, where the transport units are organic to the platoon; if those transports are a separate formation, they have their own Leader, and can be given a different Objective than the infantry formation riding in them. This would allow the transports to drive forward, unload, the infantry platoon to move towards ITS Objective, and the Transport Leader could redirect his transports to return to the rear, without ALSO changing the Objective of the Infantry formation.

But most players over the years have asked that the transports be included in the infantry formation, for easier purchasing. So the C&C aspect is more difficult because of this.



junk2drive -> RE: C&C (1/28/2007 12:38:39 AM)

Thanks for the help guys.
KG, since the manual is from 5.0 and we are up to 8.4 I thought there might be some pitfalls.
I was hoping that someone made a guide but I think trial and error (frustration?) is the answer. Then ask questions.



vahauser -> RE: C&C (1/28/2007 12:48:23 AM)

junk2drive,

There will be much frustration at first.  There is a learning curve.  But C&C ON is a superior way to play.  I've played lots with both C&C ON and C&C OFF.  And having played lots both ways, I can say that even though the game is biased against C&C ON, it provides a more realistic and historical feel than C&C OFF.  I'll be here when you have questions.  Happy gaming.

--V



Riun T -> RE: C&C (1/28/2007 1:19:07 AM)

I've got a question for ya VA,, in all your years playing this game how often do u do a battle where u give the AI control of some of your units?,I never have because I also don't believe the AI is capeable of running any unit to its proper working,and didn't want to place all those waypoints. just wanted to know if u've experimented that way?



KG Erwin -> RE: C&C (1/28/2007 1:21:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

junk2drive,

There will be much frustration at first.  There is a learning curve.  But C&C ON is a superior way to play.  I've played lots with both C&C ON and C&C OFF.  And having played lots both ways, I can say that even though the game is biased against C&C ON, it provides a more realistic and historical feel than C&C OFF.  I'll be here when you have questions.  Happy gaming.

--V


So, Victor, you use C&C during your campaigns? I do NOT use it. The vagaries of WWII-era radio communication are still built-in with C&C OFF. You can't call in arty on demand at a 100% rate -- this has caused me much grief. As the battalion commander with C&C off, you still have limited control over asset assignment.

Yes, I CAN maneuver units individually, but the command ranges for company/platoon commanders still apply. The whole idea is to keep units operating as discrete manuever elements with maintaining contact with their superior HQ, and keeping the chain of command intact is a policy I try to maintain.

This is a voluntary attempt to keep things historical. I've conditioned myself to play in this fashion.

This policy is NOT set in stone -- at times, I've had to form ad-hoc teams to reach victory hexes. Risks are taken, yes, but I don't go out of my way to take advantage of the game's quirks.

To put it another way, I'm not "gamey". I don't care what you say, Victor, being a "power gamer" is nothing more than taking advantage of the loopholes in the game code to win, no matter how ridiculous it is.

Whatever gets your rocks off is fine, I suppose. [8|]



Goblin -> RE: C&C (1/28/2007 1:30:22 AM)

...going downhill...

[:(]



KG Erwin -> RE: C&C (1/28/2007 1:36:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Goblin

...going downhill...

[:(]


OK, I'll shut up now.



Goblin -> RE: C&C (1/28/2007 1:37:25 AM)

I didn't say that...




Goblin



vahauser -> RE: C&C (1/28/2007 5:41:29 AM)

Erwin,

My Group Andrews AARs were all done using C&C ON. Nothing gamey there. It is far easier to exploit the game using C&C OFF, I promise you.


Riun T,

Sometimes late in a campaign when all my units have experience 120 and above and I have 20,000 build points accumulated, I'll just turn control of my units over to the AI because I'm bored with the campaign. I haven't played any campaign that far though in a long time. Hopefully, now that Enhanced DV is finished I can actually play a campaign all the way to the end without a new version of the game being released.



Nikademus -> RE: C&C (1/29/2007 6:14:27 PM)

I prefer CC off myself.....then again i also play with INF toughness set @ 200% [:D]



h_h_lightcap -> RE: C&C (1/30/2007 3:41:44 AM)

vahauser,

You cant have it both ways-----It seems more historical with C&C on ---yet you are a power gamer and like to take weird force mixes----

C and C seems like a good idea but it plays goofy---units that are being fired on cant make common sense retreats and it really hurts countries like Germany and Finland that let their Sarg's show initiative and make battlefield deciscions.  

HH



vahauser -> RE: C&C (1/30/2007 4:13:20 AM)

h_h_lightcap,

Speaking strictly as a power gamer, C&C ON makes the game more challenging when played as single-player vs. the computer.  As for whether C&C ON is more 'historical' or not is debatable since the word 'historical' seems to have a different definition for every player.




h_h_lightcap -> RE: C&C (1/30/2007 8:06:12 AM)

Ban Me NOw GObby---


HH--holding his tongue



vahauser -> RE: C&C (1/30/2007 3:30:41 PM)

h_h_lightcap,

I am curious as to why you think you should hold back.

Do you think that C&C ON is not as challenging as C&C OFF in single-player games against the computer?

Do you think that you have a definition of the word 'historical' that represents the consensus view?

In either or both of the cases I just asked about, I would very much like to see the answer(s).  Please.



h_h_lightcap -> RE: C&C (1/30/2007 5:25:35 PM)

vah---

1. first please address my main point about flexibilty of units to retreat or do anything after orders are used in C and C.


2. PLEASE FOR GODS SAKE DONT LECTURE or INSTRUCT ME AGAIN ON HOW C AND C IS HARDER OR MORE CHALLEGING!!!!  DUH!!!!  that is like saying a tiger is tougher than a sherman---sorry Jess. 

3. My point about C and C is not about the challenge but about the goofy way it makes play----I agree that no c and c is too powerfull but the current way c and c works isnt better IT IS WORSE>>>>>>>>>>>>

4. If you want some way to challenge a player then i like your other ideas---AI hard AI advantage---Giving the AI lots of points---Less build pts etc.......


HH



Nikademus -> RE: C&C (1/30/2007 8:26:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: h_h_lightcap


C and C seems like a good idea but it plays goofy---units that are being fired on cant make common sense retreats and it really hurts countries like Germany and Finland that let their Sarg's show initiative and make battlefield deciscions.  

HH


Thats probably my main problem with it too. I like the idea of limitations via "orders spent" in order to shift one's axis of advance/attack etc, but to not be able to retreat out of a suddenly hot situation, esp if playing one of the nations that have less "orders" per turn....it quickly snowballs into a mess.





vahauser -> RE: C&C (1/30/2007 9:04:24 PM)

h_h_lightcap and Nikademus,

C&C ON is currently the setting used by the FlashFyre campaign template.  FlashFyre recommended this setting. 

Since I am comfortable playing with either C&C ON or OFF (really doesn't matter to me because I have played for years both ways), then when FlashFyre recommended C&C ON I did not have a problem with it.  Still don't. 

Even today I play about 50% of my SPWAW games with C&C ON and 50% with C&C OFF.



Nikademus -> RE: C&C (1/30/2007 10:01:12 PM)

Thats fine......myself, I play em all 100% CC off. [:)]

Never had a scenario/campaign suffer yet for having it as such.



vahauser -> RE: C&C (1/30/2007 10:04:50 PM)

Nikademus,

Yes, but this thread was originally posted by junk2drive who wanted advice regarding how to play with C&C ON.



Nikademus -> RE: C&C (1/30/2007 10:22:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Nikademus,

Yes, but this thread was originally posted by junk2drive who wanted advice regarding how to play with C&C ON.


Yes, I saw that, however you then made the statement But C&C ON is a superior way to play. I then saw that h_h_lightcap offered a counter opinion...one which i happen to agree with, and said so.

If Junk want's to play with CC on, by all means....it's a free game of course. [Personally I don't find it "superior" in any way. Maybe redone....but not in it's current incarnation. It hasn't diminshed my SP experience. :)]



vahauser -> RE: C&C (1/30/2007 10:56:00 PM)

Nikademus,

Fair enough.  There could be endless debate regarding which is the superior way.  I play both equally. 

In my opinion, C&C ON is more challenging.  I think that is why FlashFyre recommended it for the FlashFyre campaign template. 

Does more challenging = superior?  Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  But it doesn't matter because everybody has both options to play either as they prefer.

In my case, if somebody says, "Victor, let's play with C&C ON."  I say fine with me.  If somebody says, "Victor, let's play with C&C OFF."  I say fine with me.

If somebody put a gun to my head and forced me to choose between the two, I would choose C&C ON.  I would choose C&C ON because it magnifies skill differences between players.  By this I mean that if two players of unequal ability are playing, C&C OFF gives the weaker player a better chance to win.  But if those same two players are playing with C&C ON, then the weaker player has less chance to win.  I see this as important for things like tournaments where the goal is that ability should prevail instead of luck.  But how often do we play in tournaments?  Not very often, so this is not very relevant and not a very important distinction.  Which means that it just doesn't matter very much.

As an aside, the reason that C&C ON magnifies skill differences between players is because it adds another layer of complexity to an already complex game.  More skilled players can handle that additional layer of complexity more readily, thereby giving them a greater advantage.  Don't misunderstand me.  This does not imply that C&C ON is superior to C&C OFF.  I'm not saying that.  I'm merely saying that it is more complicated.  More complicated does not mean superior.  Just means more complicated.



Nikademus -> RE: C&C (1/30/2007 11:12:41 PM)

quote:


If somebody put a gun to my head and forced me to choose between the two, I would choose C&C ON. I would choose C&C ON because it magnifies skill differences between players


I thought you said the point of this thread was to gather advice regarding the use of CC? [:)]




vahauser -> RE: C&C (1/30/2007 11:30:19 PM)

Nikademus,

Well said. 


junk2drive,

If you (or anyone else) have come up with any questions regarding C&C ON, I'll do my best to answer them.



vahauser -> RE: C&C (2/13/2007 8:36:50 PM)

junk2drive,

Here are a couple of tips when using C&C ON:

1) Be very careful with your initial deployment. I typically take a day or even two days to do my initial deployment. To me, playing with C&C ON is somewhat like chess. The challenge is to be able to look several turns into the future. Everything during deployment should be choreographed as much as possible. Units and formations all need objectives assigned that allow them to operate most effectively as a team. Deployment is the only time this can be done without interference from the enemy. I try to foresee routes of advance, lanes of fire, secondary and tertiary firing positions, etc.
2) Transport units that shuttle back and forth (e.g., river barges) can be assigned a ‘mid-point’ objective that is midway between the ‘pickup’ location and the ‘dropoff’ location. This allows the transport unit to move back and forth without having to expend orders all the time.
3) I find it best to assign ‘far-away’ objectives to formations that I cannot foresee a better ‘close-range’ objective. Often, the very first thing I’ll do during deployment is assign a ‘far-away’ objective (usually somewhere along the enemy board edge) using the “all formation” objective command. Then I go through all my formations one by one and modify their objectives if necessary.
4) I define a ‘close-range’ objective as one that the formation can reach in three turns. I use three turns because typically that is how long it will take for the formation commander to regenerate enough orders to issue a new objective. It is also about the maximum number of turns that I can foresee into the future with any degree of reliability. In general, I prefer ‘close-range’ objectives over ‘far-away’ objectives because I can frequently get more precise coordination between formations. But there is always the danger that if something happens to the formation commander, then a ‘close-range’ objective can backfire, leaving the damaged formation without orders and in trouble. There is a definite risk and reward here. I’ve played with C&C ON for so many years that it is second nature to me. Just be advised that ‘close-range’ objectives can be risky business. But the rewards of better tactical flexibility can be worth the risk if you know what you are doing.

Hope these tips might come in handy for you.

--V



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.4375