Maps with VLs unhidden (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Modern Tactics >> Mods and Scenarios



Message

needle -> Maps with VLs unhidden (11/17/2007 2:14:03 PM)

I'd be extremely happy if someone did a mod to the original maps with VLs shown. I hate hidden VLs :(.



salwon -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/17/2007 9:50:43 PM)

Anyone know what the design decision was here? I thought they took VLs out until I took stumbled on my first one.



Andrew Williams -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/17/2007 11:06:50 PM)

The design decision was made by the US Marines.

The focus was not on securing that 1 spot but by controlling an area... the inclusion of a viewable VL took the focus off the real job required.

The marines saw viewable VL's as an unrealistic modelling of a way to depict an objective.

It also encouraged the "VL Rush"

what do you think, I'd sure like to hear more of a discussion on this.



AlvinS -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/17/2007 11:42:11 PM)

quote:

The design decision was made by the US Marines.

The focus was not on securing that 1 spot but by controlling an area... the inclusion of a viewable VL took the focus off the real job required.

The marines saw viewable VL's as an unrealistic modelling of a way to depict an objective.

It also encouraged the "VL Rush"

what do you think, I'd sure like to hear more of a discussion on this.


It would be nice to have the option to turn them on if you want. After your explanation, I am happy either way. I am having fun, but still have a lot to learn.




needle -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/18/2007 9:48:56 PM)

I don't see the point to hide 'em totally, as the mission orders (objectives) are not crystal clear on the VLs (on some yes, but not on all of 'em). I get the area control aspect, but since that exact spot still needs to be taken, you now have to "hunt" for the VL (you'll know 'em by heart after a few times of playing tho...) I don't want something huge to point out the spot. Maybe just put a small marker to identify the VL.

Another thing I like about VLs, is that when ordering fire support without knowledge of enemy positions, you'd go for strategic points on the map. The obvious bridges and crossroads are ofcourse good targets, but knowing the VL's gives you some good targets too. In a real situation you would use fire support if available to soften the defences anyhow before moving in on a priority objective.

Another reason for making the VLs visible to me is the strict time limit on the maps. As you're pressed with time anyhow, it would be nice to know by a glance where to push...

Just my two cents.



Andrew Williams -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/18/2007 10:14:04 PM)

We're listening... good points that will be considered.



VanScoy -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/18/2007 11:05:51 PM)

I would understand it the objectives were a little more clear. Some maps have victory conditions as "WIN!" Am I supposed to control heights? Junctions? Urban areas? VL's guide us in the direction our thrust should be in. Coupled with time limits it is a recipe for frustration.



Andrew Williams -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/18/2007 11:15:55 PM)

One scenario has that Instruction in the briefing.

It is a get to Know CCMT scenario.... mount your vehicles , drive off into the battle... tally Ho!

needle said:
quote:

(you'll know 'em by heart after a few times of playing tho...)


CCMT has a powerful editor.. you can open a scenario and move all the "Vl's" around to different areas, change the deployment areas, adjust the forcemix  and post them here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=515



mooxe -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/18/2007 11:52:52 PM)

I think we all knew YEARS ago that hidden VLs would lead to easter egg hunts. Once players find out where the VLs are on commonly used scenarios, the reason they are hidden becomes useless. A person can also make a scenario with VLs scattered around, host it, and ofcourse know where they all are and the opponent has no idea. The only way in this game without significant changes to solve the VL rush problem is to add a timer to them. Player X has to hold VL Y for Z number of minutes or seconds.

The real job the USMC were using CCM for was cognitive training, to teach people how to make decisions. They didnt really play to win, they played to learn, hence why there wasnt much requirement for VLs. Unless CCMT is a recruiting tool for the USMC I cant understand how this hidden VL issue ever made it to the final release. There should at the very least be an on/off button.



Pford -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/18/2007 11:53:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: needle

I get the area control aspect, but since that exact spot still needs to be taken, you now have to "hunt" for the VL (you'll know 'em by heart after a few times of playing tho...) I don't want something huge to point out the spot. Maybe just put a small marker to identify the VL.



Variable VL locations make a lot of sense (I think) for random, disposable scenarios. But "Knowing 'em by heart" kinds of kills the replay value and defeats the purpose, IMO.



jomni -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/19/2007 2:54:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mooxe
Unless CCMT is a recruiting tool for the USMC I cant understand how this hidden VL issue ever made it to the final release. There should at the very least be an on/off button.


CCMT's TOE is US Army so it's not USMC advertising.
I'd also like to have viewable VL's.
Search and destroy is too tasking.



needle -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/19/2007 6:24:53 PM)

If not tags pointing to the exact location, then the general area where the VL's are located would be nice. I could live with that too. I really don't want VL tags that change when they're occupied, as this is an obvious target for support fire. In real life you wouldn't know if the objective is occupied or not anyway, unless you have imagery or other recon material available.



jomni -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/20/2007 3:23:38 AM)

Nice idea... More text to describe the VL on the map.
E.g. "Mosque", "Residential Block", etc.
Anyway, when I create my own missions, I will take this into consideration.



CptJake -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/20/2007 4:05:51 AM)

I've worked with Marines, and spent about ten years on active duty in the army.  If you are not going to show VLs, that is great, but you do owe us some type of ops graphics.  I expect to see objectives clearly marked, routes to be taken marked, check points marked.  Known or suspected enemy locations should be marked, unit boundaries should be marked, ect...   Give me at least the objectives and routes/checkpoints and I won't need VLs.  Without that it turns into a guessing game that I bet the marines did not deal with...



Perturabo -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/20/2007 5:37:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: needle

I'd be extremely happy if someone did a mod to the original maps with VLs shown. I hate hidden VLs :(.

A mod that shows VLs can be easily made with in-game Editor - one just needs to put Landmark Lables over all VLs.



mavraamides -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/20/2007 6:18:48 PM)

My problem with the VL's isn't so much that they are hidden, its these 2 things:

1) They aren't always at what I would consider strategic locations.  They are often out in the far corners of the map where I wouldn't normally waste any of my units and seem to contribute little to control of the area.  Look at Scenario 01 for example.  What significance to the VL's in the NE and SW corners have?  And why are there none on the ridge line north of where the US forces start?  Can we at least put them in the obvious observation points like along ridge lines, tops of hills, etc?

2) You have to stumble right over them to tigger them.  It should be who has more troops in the general area.  Then its not about an easter egg hunt its about occupying an area which makes more sense.  Another example from Scenario 01:  The obvious (and correct) VL location at the top of the bald hill in the NW section of the map was originally controlled by the OPFOR.  I wiped out their entire force, they didn't have a single unit left on the map, I sent an AFV up to the top of the ridge with 10 minutes left in the game and waited till the timer ran out.  It was still OPFOR controlled and I ended up with a draw!  Why? because I hand't found the exact 'hex' that the VL was in.  That makes no sense to me. 



Andrew Williams -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/20/2007 9:20:43 PM)

I'll post a couple of engagements today with marked VL's..... let me know what you think.



Senior Drill -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/21/2007 1:41:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CptJake

I've worked with Marines, and spent about ten years on active duty in the army.  If you are not going to show VLs, that is great, but you do owe us some type of ops graphics.  I expect to see objectives clearly marked, routes to be taken marked, check points marked.  Known or suspected enemy locations should be marked, unit boundaries should be marked, ect...   Give me at least the objectives and routes/checkpoints and I won't need VLs.  Without that it turns into a guessing game that I bet the marines did not deal with...


Your right, they didn't. What they did do is draw those markups on an 8" x 11" printed map, which you can do too if you really need to.



Andrew Williams -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/21/2007 2:07:28 AM)

New user made map and scenario with VL's

http://www.closecombat.org/CSO/index.php?name=CmodsDownload&file=index&req=viewdownload&cid=33&orderby=dateD



CptJake -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/21/2007 2:34:29 AM)

"Your right, they didn't. What they did do is draw those markups on an 8" x 11" printed map, which you can do too if you really need to. "

Except I didn't design the scenarios, the scenario designer ought to provide the ops graphics.   Heck, most of the mssion statements would flunk a student in BNCOC or the officer basic course for a combat MOS.  It makes it hard as the player to figure out what is expected.  I can go with a military style order and graphics, but unless the scenario designer lets me, the plyer, know what is expected it is very difficult.

Jake



zon -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/21/2007 9:16:39 PM)

Visible VLs for a public release of CC is a no-brainer. You might be able to use landmark text to let players know where VLs are, but players need to know when they switch hands and in whose hands they remain. In the heat of battle, you can lose track of VL control without visible flags. This game is not a military trainer and invisible VLs should have been fixed before release. Also, CC purists would probably prefer to have back the dark deployment blocks declaring the enemy setup zone; intel on the enemy-held area is not unrealistic.

Why didn't Matrix/Simtek/whoever not excise the square map requirement. This is a huge impediment to converting older maps (no, I don't want to a mod a black box around a rectangular map to make it work). Why is this there? Smaller maps, btw, are a must for this game if you want to encourage 1 vs 1 player, 2 vs 2, human version AI, cause by the looks of the BHQ lobby no one is playing the game online at the moment, and 10-player games will be rare.

How about a quick patch to fix the above????

This version of CC seems to be a relatively bug-free (EDIT: some bugs actually), smooth engine, and has the potential to be modded heavily. But it's a little rough around the edges.



Andrew Williams -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/21/2007 9:18:34 PM)

see map posted above zon



Andrew Williams -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/21/2007 9:21:41 PM)

quote:

intel on the enemy-held area is not unrealistic.


It's only a 1 square KM map zon... the enemy is only at your finger tips, you know where he is.


PS: Did you get my mail?



zon -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/21/2007 9:34:03 PM)

The map looks great, but we need to convert myriad maps available from other versions. We also still need visible VLs.

No mail.



Daviald -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/25/2007 12:52:21 PM)

A couple of points to address:

I agree that Better Op Orders would be appreciated to guide the gameplay along I hope all the mod makers out there will take this into account.  Even adding the commander's intent under Execution would aid the gaming experience and allow the players to become more involved.  A more through Execution would also be fun.  See if a player can stick to a plan or know when to deviate from it and begin to follow merely the commander's intent.
http://www.uga.edu/semperfi/documents/Fiveparagraph.ppt
(A short brief on a 5 Para order.  Ignore the bulletins talking about SULE II.  SULE II is a fun little event at OCS for Marine Corps Candidates.)

I have not had a problem locating VL's because I simply go where the enemy was or is and I usually end up fighting over the objectives anyways.  If the Player cannot know where the VL's are though, Why have the AI know.  I have checked a couple of times and they will follow the VL's like a trail of bread crumbs.  Instead of simply seeking to destroy me, As I am left to do with him, he is concerned with terrain control for Victory point purposes, not tactical value.  It would be fun to fight an AI foe, that sought to simply destroy me as I am forced to do to him, instead of having to hunt one down that is only interested in a land run.

Does the game not take into consideration the cost of the battle?  If a player losses 8 AFV's taking a VL and the defender only losses 1 AT team, I would not consider that a win, but will the game register it as such?

I just spent 10 minutes watching the AI Parade 4 AFV's and a whole slew of Infantry in circles on the other side of a bridge before I exited the game.  The AI needs to be tweaked especially with the vehicles.  Nothing as frustrating as a unit inform you that it is facing the wrong way to fire, but it won't turn around.  I just have no sympathy for the crew of that AFV when it gets blown up.

Allowing multiple AI opponents would be interesting.  Is there a way to do this?  A fight with 5 CPU's vs 1 human and 1 CPU would make for some interesting scenario's.



jomni -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/26/2007 10:37:57 AM)

Sadly Victory is measured through teritorry. This is based on CC5 and territory is key because it also affects the overall campaign map. Never mind the casualties because you can get units from the unit pool anyway.

Even if the enemy surrenders because of low morale (due to cansualties), all his victory locations become neutral (not handed over to the victor). If you don't have at least one VL under control, the battle is lost.



ogre -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/29/2007 7:05:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

The marines saw viewable VL's as an unrealistic modelling of a way to depict an objective.



If this is the case, then the hidden VLs better properly "reflect" and reward a team commander who executes the proper tactics to achieve the scenario's stated objectives. In my experience, the hidden VLs fail in this regard.

What's worse than a player chasing visible objectives in a quest to achieve victory? A player who chases and successfully conquers true objectives only to be declared defeated because his teams failed to occupy the specific locations measuring success.

I understand the Marines logic for not displaying VL locations in training. Our real enemies don't paint big VL signs next to their objectives. On the flip side, I pray our real Marines are not evaluated based on the same VL scoring we gamers are subject to at the end of our games. I would hope the real Marines have some rock solid objective verbal feedback on their performance. The VLs are meaningless in this context. The seasoned feedback is where the soldier is made.

As for us, we don't get that kind of feedback. All we get are the VLs. So either the VL system needs to be improved so it properly reflects good performance....OR.....we need to see those VLs.




zon -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/29/2007 7:59:18 AM)

VLs represent territory, something that wars since whenever have been fought over - along with the spoils that come with it. The Russians in WWII could have beaten the Nazis all to hell but if they stayed in Moscow instead of marching to Berlin, then there wouldn't be much of a victory there. Victory is measured in CC by territory and therefore VLs. The VL is a gaming device to enforce a real-world situation: taking an objective. In online play, traditionally, you play for VLs, usually a majority (2 our 3 for example). If you can't muster the forces to take that the VLs, you lose - no matter what the game results say. (Force morale was coded into the game in CCIV to take into account staggering losses and unwise use of your men, introducing a more realistic element to VL hunting) All CCs to date have had visible VLs, and this version is unfortunately hobbled with invisible VLs, among other things.




Perturabo -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/29/2007 3:08:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: zon

Visible VLs for a public release of CC is a no-brainer. You might be able to use landmark text to let players know where VLs are, but players need to know when they switch hands and in whose hands they remain. In the heat of battle, you can lose track of VL control without visible flags.

Because, it's totally realistic, when an icon tells the player when unseen enemy soldiers move over a victory location[8|].



zon -> RE: Maps with VLs unhidden (11/29/2007 7:32:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo


quote:

ORIGINAL: zon

Visible VLs for a public release of CC is a no-brainer. You might be able to use landmark text to let players know where VLs are, but players need to know when they switch hands and in whose hands they remain. In the heat of battle, you can lose track of VL control without visible flags.

Because, it's totally realistic, when an icon tells the player when unseen enemy soldiers move over a victory location[8|].


Any more unrealistic than clicking around a battlefield and moving vehicles and men about like some god? It's a game, and as such needs some gaming mechanisms. The VLs also happen to be there, and winning or losing is based on them... so let's see the Vls already.

I played a game last night at Battle HQ and the the scenario instructions said 'take the town.' My opponent rained down this game's destructive indirect fire on my approaching troops and I could not take the town. Yet, at game end, it turns out most of the VLs were in my territory, so according to the game I won. Another reason to see those little flags.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.234375