command control (Full Version)

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



Message

slammer -> command control (8/16/2000 9:52:00 PM)

I would like to get players thoughts on command control. Do you play with it on or off. The reason I ask is that last night playing a scenario I had several squads in a defend stance that were out of contact with command. Command control was on and I was unable to move these squads to a better position. It would seem that if a squad needed to move to a better defensive position or to save its life it would do so on its own if out of radio contact. Thoughts?



Dave R -> (8/16/2000 10:05:00 PM)

I always play with the Command and control on. Though I do agree with the point that you make that when a squad looses contact they tend to sit down and refuse to move, be that in the open, or in cover. One way around this, is that I've noticed that an out of contact squad will always move towards their last known objective flag. So by keeping the whole units bounds short, you can use the obejective flag as a rallying point, where they can re-establish comms with their unit leader.



Fredde -> (8/16/2000 10:06:00 PM)

I always play with command and control on. It adds another dimension to the game with officers more able to control/influence units. It also forces me to keep my formations together, and actually work as a platoon/company/battallion etc. More realistic i'd say. Leadership is a true key factor in military tactics, and command/control on makes an attempt to model this. Your specific problem.. i think it could be quite realistic, at least in WWII where individual initiative among soldiers was not as praised as it is today (for most units and countries anyway). If your officer is not around to command, you are likely to stay put and do what you were doing. Without contact with the officers, your unit would get little information and try its best (hopefully) to obey the previously given orders. Maybe the sergeant commanding the individual squad isn't man enough to assess the situation and realize the danger they are in. The solution to this is to keep your platoon hq close enough to affect the units. I'm not sure if it's the case now, but perhaps troops out of contact should rout/retreat more easily than troops with a working chain of command. The feeling of being left "on your own" is not a very good one for troop morale :-) Perhaps a more experienced squad leading sergeant should be able to get an order or two to spend once in a while when the squad is not in contact with the platoon hq.



Wild Bill -> (8/16/2000 10:26:00 PM)

Usually off. I like having complete control of my troops and to heck with the local commanders...call it a Hitler-Patton-Stalin nature in me (G). When instructed specifically in the scenario text file to use it (usually a good reason) or if I myself am trying to convey a certain feel to the game, I'll use it and leave it on when I finish designing the scenario so that it is the default setting. Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games



Drake666 -> (8/16/2000 11:08:00 PM)

I always play with it on. I like it when my troops are screming for that tank support and the dame tank driver is 500 yards back trying to figger out what road to take to get to the battle.



orc4hire -> (8/16/2000 11:09:00 PM)

I keep it on. It isn't normally a problem, though I do remember one time I had ordered a general pursuit of the enemy after breaking them in a meeting engagement, and this one squad just wouldn't get in its halftrack and go. They were in a building, so I couldn't move the HT to them. (If a squad is stuck in Defend mode you can still load it on transport and haul it to where it needs to be.) I confess that I did become somewhat frustrated and drove the HT into the building after them, causing the building to collapse and kill half the squad. They've behaved much better ever since. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img]



slammer -> (8/17/2000 12:36:00 AM)

Interesting opinions as always! I accidently selected a unit of trucks and moved them far ahead of my recon unit. I can still here the guys in the trucks calling their commander names as the enemy tanks blasted them to bits.



Windo von Paene -> (8/17/2000 1:33:00 AM)

I didn't use it in my first scenario, "Brave Men at Beito". Got slaughtered. Started a different scen. It was on, and I couldn't figure out what was going on. why wouldn't my troops move?!?! Oh... So I turned it off. Was trying to play a PBEM and set up my troops assuming it was turned off. It wasn't [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/frown.gif[/img] Blows your strategy to bits when that happens! I had formations scattered all over the whole map, many of whom either sat around with no place to go, or would only move backwards to some objective that they got somehow by default. Luckily, that game had to be abandoned due to the "disappearing units" problem, once three formations of AFV's and about 8 fully loaded trucks disappeared. I hope to try it again sometime, when I know before I deploy that it is turned on...



Tombstone -> (8/17/2000 3:58:00 AM)

C&C is great. I try to always play with it on. But I've noticed that if you have a scenario with LOTS of units some of the formations' orders dont 'take' or something. They have their advance points defined as hex (##,##) but no hexes are lit up, AND it always costs command points to move them. Anyways, C&C adds a planning dimension to the game that can be really interesting. Tomo



Antonius -> (8/17/2000 4:36:00 AM)

Always ON Found it a bit cumbersome at first but when I finally understood the mechanics completly and found out that right-clicking in the formation leader was the best way to change orders, i could no more play without it - even when scen briefings recommand to turn it off. Having to plan and play with formations in mind, having to regroup at times to regain control of them makes the make much more realistic, interesting and challenging.



McGib -> (8/17/2000 4:48:00 AM)

Tried it once. Hated it. Like WB I want complete control over my units.



victorhauser -> (8/17/2000 7:36:00 AM)

If you plan on playing in any tournaments I suggest you get as much C/C experience as you can. I always play with it on.



slammer -> (8/17/2000 8:11:00 PM)

I have played the last two scenario's with c&C off. I have found you still have to plan carefully and keep those formations together to cover advances etc. or you lose. Regrouping , change of objectives still occur. I like the individual control. However I have not given playing with c&c on equal time so i'll have to do that.



Seth -> (8/17/2000 8:13:00 PM)

I play with the CC off. I can't stand the way units get stuck. I leave on all the other realism settings so I can still sleep at night.



Jackk -> (8/18/2000 9:08:00 AM)

I like the idea of C&C but can never get it to work right. I always end up with some units being able to move and others just sitting there stuck.....or maybe one or 2 units can move, but none of the others in that formation. I keep my units together..usually in a line with the xO right in the middle, but he don't have orders either and it's not like the AO can run around sharing orders with 10 formations. I'm playing a PBEM battle now and some formations can't even assign a new objective because there aren't enough orders. It's frustrating to have tanks and infantry dash 1/2 way across a field and then get bogged down due to "shortage of orders". Then the enemy creeps over the hill and has a target gallery of units to shoot at. Ah well, I'll keep reading, playing, and learning and maybe one day I'll get it :-) ------------------ Jackk "Smile today cuz tomorrow may really suck"



McGib -> (8/18/2000 10:02:00 AM)

I prefer playing with C&C off because I believe squad NCO's and tank commanders are (in most countries) intelligent enough and have sufficient initiative to do what is required and not have an officer come by and hold their hand. Otherwise they wouldnt be squad NCO's and tank commanders.



Paul Vebber -> (8/18/2000 12:24:00 PM)

Having control over individual Squad NCO's and TC's is fun, but allows you to "be lazy" in your thinking. As the manual says, C2 in the game doesn't try to model real C3 issues, but force you to take 3 key things into account in playing: 1). Think Ahead - Have a scheme of manuever 2). Platoons are your manuever elements - keep them together 3). Stance matters - proper use of advance and defend stances can be a real combat enhancer - especially in ver 3. Once you get the hang of it it becomes 2nd nature and forces you to develop good tactical habits that will win games - even when you go back to playing with it off (feeels like cheatin [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img])!



Alex -> (8/18/2000 6:20:00 PM)

Wow... all the time I felt all alone thinking only I was "cheating", playing with out C&C. Now I see I'm not alone. I'm not sure, but IMO C&C requieres you to keep your forces too tight. Otherwise its ok. I use it sometimes. Alex



Arralen -> (8/18/2000 7:00:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by slammer: I would like to get players thoughts on command control. Do you play with it on or off. .. Thoughts?
If it would work, I really would like it. Was playing that "what-if-France-attacked-in-'39" scenario some days ago, and had 3 Secs of engineers sitting around doing nothing - I stacked the ..0-Unit with the ..1 in one hex, and the ..2 was nearby (neighbouring hex) - but both ..1 and ..2 stayed "out of contact" for 10 turns. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/frown.gif[/img] The ..0 had radio contact to HQ troughout this period. I really really hate when something like this happens .. BUGS BUGS BUGS !!!! Arralen



Paul Vebber -> (8/18/2000 8:23:00 PM)

We are adding some features to help make it easier to use. THe HQ units will have parentheses around their "+" or number of men. If you have a problem, send me a save and I'll try to take a look at it, not saying there may not be a bug, but every save I've been sent I've had time to look at had an explaination...



slammer -> (8/18/2000 10:45:00 PM)

Paul I must confess I have not read through the manual yet, only paragraphs here and there. I think using C&C or not and becoming "lazy" can depend on how you approach the game. I believe I adhere to the 3 principles you outline and spend alot of time " upfront" before a single turn is played plotting strategy. I base alot of the way I play on a series of fine articles on tactics written by a member of wild bills gang who unfortunatly his name escapes me now of course. One example in the way I approach the game for instance if I know the final turn is approaching I am not going to rush a truck to seize an objective surrounded by the enemy to get the points and win. I'll get reading the manual.



orc4hire -> (8/18/2000 11:30:00 PM)

Requires you to keep your forces too tight? Heavens. If I recall correctly (I don't have my references here) German doctrine called for an infantry battalion to attack on a front of something like 400 meters. About 8 hexes of front for a 3 company attack. While poking around today I came across this: http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/korea/30-2/30-2_2.htm It would describe an SPWAW action as well as the actual event. The discussion segement after the action narrative is especially relevent to the discussion on hand. Here's an excerpt: ***** The company commander should have been the key figure in the final phase of the attack; he should have been the spirit of a two-platoon assault which never materialized. Instead, remaining five hundred yards behind with the base of fire, he was so unable to control the two leading platoons that one of them even became lost and completely ineffective. ***** Hmm, a whole platoon out of contact and unable to move.... How unrealistic. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img]



Kluckenbill -> (8/19/2000 6:12:00 AM)

It took me awhile to get used to C&C. Prior to SPWAW I had played a lot of SP1 and 2 but not much SP3. Now that I have gotten used to it I feel it is a crucial element of the game. In SP1 and 2 (especially with older units with poor or nonexistent radios) the overall commander had WAY too much control over his units. All I can say to players who are frustrated with C&C is to keep trying. It is often frustrating but so was commanding a Brigade in WW2, and at least here no one suffers (only our egos) from our mistakes.



Scipio Africanus -> (8/19/2000 6:47:00 AM)

I love C&C as it forces units to have some level of cohesion in order to maintain tactical awareness. I use a lot of pre plan orders (flags) so that units will have something to fall back on if things go poorly and they lose contact. Sometimes individual units don't do what I want them to do, but this is the way it should be. I like that a unit 200 yards from another won't know what to do (which doesn't look very far on the map, but it's plenty far to lose communication unless the other squad is jumping up and down and waving semaphore flags). C&C also makes a battle between Nationalist and Communist Chinese look completely different than one between US and Germany (Chinese must often move their tanks very slowly to maintain contact- result: they aren't as tactically flexible as the Germans, making one adapt one's tactics to the situation at hand). Cheers, ------------------ Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus



Kharan -> (8/19/2000 7:14:00 AM)

After having consulted the manual and learning how C&C works, I (we) wouldn't think of going back now... that would feel like turning the Morale setting off [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img]. There is a feature though, (regarding unit buying) which allows cheating C&C, but that isn't a problem unless you play with some suspicious company. ----------------------------------------------------------------- -Sallah, where's my father? -They have him, in the belly of that Steel Beast. [This message has been edited by Kharan (edited August 18, 2000).]



Skotty -> (8/19/2000 7:24:00 AM)

My question is does the AI work differently whether C&C is on or off in regards to its own units?



KG Erwin -> (8/19/2000 7:43:00 AM)

The C&C option, to me, is a natural progression from total control in operational games to the nitty gritty on the battlefield. I've seen this in some of the US Civil War games I own, wherein you have to maintain contact with the various hierarchical levels of command (regiment to brigade, brigade to division, division to corps). It seems to me to be one of the most realistic and challenging features of SPWaW. HOWEVER, it also seems to be the most frustrating part for those of us used to just point, click and move. THIS is where the historical lessons come in, and why games of this nature are used in actual combat leadership training courses, albeit with modern weapons and 3D simulators. I wouldn't think of NOT using C&C , unless a particular scenario is designed with the option turned off. Glenn. PS To Wild Bill, I'm frankly surprised that you disagreed with the majority of us. Can you give us a little elaboration, and maybe a comment about the training simulations and their relation to commercial wargames? Further addendum: There's a great site run by Jim Dunnigan (one of the truly Mt Olympean figures in wargames) and Al Nofi. http://www.strategypage.com. There's a good article about the uses of "commercial" games as training devices. I think I'll try to e-mail Mr. Dunnigan and see if he will review SPWaW 3.0. Anyone with me on that idea? ------------------ "Klotzen, nicht Kleckern (roughly translated, 'Boot em, don't spatter em')"--Heinz Guderian [This message has been edited by KG Erwin (edited August 18, 2000).] [This message has been edited by KG Erwin (edited August 19, 2000).]



Raindem -> (8/19/2000 6:26:00 PM)

C&C is my favorite part of the game and I keep it on all the time. It forces you to plan your advances and objectives better, instead of running helter skelter all over the map. I also think it adds greatly to the realism, which should be the #1 goal of a game like this.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.96875