Quick question: (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Wacht am Rhein



Message

Uncle_Joe -> Quick question: (10/24/2008 11:12:40 PM)

Is it still a tank orgy? One of my biggest disappointments with the re-released CC3 was that playing the campaign resulted in large armor battles in relatively short order.

The CC series is NOT really the best simulation of armored combat so when mass tanks take the field, the game loses something. To me, it rendered the campaign largely unplayable (or at least uninteresting).

Is there anything new in place to prevent this CC release from going down the same path?

Please note, I'm not in any way, shape, or form, trying to bash the game. I'm quite interested in buying it, but I will hold off doing so if its going to degenerate down to mass armored warfare again.

Thanks in advance!



GaryChildress -> RE: Quick question: (10/25/2008 12:24:59 AM)

IIRC CC4 had predetermined battle groups which could not be tinkered with. Therefore if your battle group has a bunch of armor or a bunch of infantry it will stay that way throughout the campaign. Of course that all may be different with the new version.



squadleader_id -> RE: Quick question: (10/25/2008 12:40:22 AM)

Based on the released info on WAR, it's based on the CC5 engine...so the Force Pool is not locked like CC4.
AFAIK, you can also opt to lock the Force Pool via the Scenario Editor.
Maybe Shreck...err...Andrew Williams can confirm this?




Neil N -> RE: Quick question: (10/25/2008 12:40:36 AM)

In WAR you have a choice of locking the forcepools (play with the default selections, ala CC4), or unlocked forcepools (you decide the final forcemix, ala CC5).  This will be done in the Campaign.txt file. For H2H battles, there is also a running point total for the battlegroup you are fighting with...so you and your opponent can agree on a point limit to try and keep things a little even.



GaryChildress -> RE: Quick question: (10/25/2008 2:32:27 AM)

I have a quick questioin as well. I'm not clear on what the situation is with the new maps. Are there now more maps for the standard grand campaign or are the extra maps just for single battles or something. In other words will the grand campaign map be 64 maps in size and therefore bigger than the original CC4 grand campaign map?

THanks.



Tejszd -> RE: Quick question: (10/25/2008 3:35:21 AM)

The strat map in WAR (64 maps) is bigger than CC4 (43)....



Andrew Williams -> RE: Quick question: (10/25/2008 5:19:48 AM)

There are various types of Battle Groups

Armoured
Infantry
Engineers
Airbourne

each with it's own characteristics as far as equipment available.

The most tank heavy is the armoured
The others will hav a couple of tanks or TD's in support or none.

The Battle groups selection process is two fold



You can stay with the default selection which will be a combined arms BG even if it is an armoured BG


This is what the AI will choose given a full complement of teams ie you haven't destroyed all the infantry teams.

But the player can choose to add as many tanks as as are available in the forcepool... this is foolhardy in the extreme as you might achieve short term gain but will suffer in the medium to longer term.



Uncle_Joe -> RE: Quick question: (10/25/2008 12:39:13 PM)

Ok, thanks for the answers, guys. :)

So it sounds like the force pools are more limited for armor? Basically if you use it all up, there isnt any more later on? Is this correct? Is there still an 'auto-balance' feature where the player beats himself by destroying the opponent too quickly? I seem to recall CC3 handing out more points when the sides became unbalanced. In theory this should work but I believe the AIs were constantly awarded enough 'balance' points to continue to re-buy armor, armor, and more armor.

Thanks again!



Andrew Williams -> RE: Quick question: (10/25/2008 8:54:33 PM)

The AI was awarded the points in CCIII/CoI if you were giving it a drubbing (experienced players only)

Auto balance was a feature if CCIII/CoI... there is no such mechanism in CC4/CC5/Wacht am Rhein.


There is a machanism that if the AI is winning in campaign mode it will become bolder in Attack, if it is losing it will set up a more active defense.... but this in no way compares with the CCIII/CoI mechanism is is just a matter of degree rather than game changing.

The AI will still not have more Tanks to field because of it...

quote:

Basically if you use it all up, there isnt any more later on? Is this correct?


Yes, although for some Battle Groups there is a Reinforce option to be used at the players discretion.... even so this may not add more Tanks.




Uncle_Joe -> RE: Quick question: (11/1/2008 2:08:23 AM)

I guess my question was probably poorly worded. I did pick it up and while its amusing, its still pretty much seeming like a tank orgy. And this is mainly due to the completely silly kill rates of armor vs infantry, even infantry in foxholes or building at 200m+. Tanks can still just sit there and 'laser death ray' the groundpounders and kill them in short order. The lethality seems very 'Hollywood' and not too terribly realistic. Almost every tank round produces a scream and a death/incapacity and the 'flashy' units seem to be the way to go (flamethrowers, tanks with big guns etc).

Anyways, its fun for a while but the ridiculously high infantry mortality rate keep it from being anymore more than a light diversion IMO.

Werent there some mods in the past that greatly toned down lethality vs infantry (especially infantry in good hard cover)? If so, do any of them work with this release? Any plans from anyone to release a more survivable infantry mod?

Thanks.



LitFuel -> RE: Quick question: (11/1/2008 2:26:00 PM)

 I'm really not seeing this I think maybe your a little to obsessed with the tank thing. I'm really not having a problem keeping my infantry alive. You have to have patience with them and very careful where you place them.



dogancan -> RE: Quick question: (11/1/2008 2:47:51 PM)

Although I am no historian or WW2 expert, it seems perfectly rational to me that if your infantry is spotted by an AFV which is outside infantry's anti-tank weapons' range, they would not have a change and war will soon be over for them. But I agree that it may become too soon and tankers in WaR should need some more time to make accurate aiming for their machine guns and main guns...



Uncle_Joe -> RE: Quick question: (11/2/2008 6:05:42 PM)

I think it has more to do with the lack of an infantry 'full cover' mode or somesuch. When infantry are in trenches or stone buildings they should be able to make themselves almost functionally immune to ranged direct small arms/MG fire. I dont care how long a tank fires its MGs at troops huddled in the bottom of a foxhole at 200m, its not likely to kill many (if any). Yet I can just assign my tanks to kill off the infantry with ease with the MGs.

Infantry just should not be THAT vulnerable at range, even when 'in the open' once they hit the ground and scrounge for cover. But time and again when moving throw woods if my men are spotted, they are soon massacred despite hitting the deck and and simply trying to remain alive. Of course part of it as well is the way that the teams have to remain bunched up. I understand this is a limitation in the engine, but again it greatly decreases infantry survivability when they have to stay so huddled together that a single HE round can kill/disable 2-3 at a time.

Anyways, I realize I'm never going to make a dent in the 'my guys dont die like, you must be a noob' crowd here and thats fine. But for anyone wondering if it shares the same kind of 'Hollywood' combat results as the original game the answer would be 'yes'. And that can be either good or bad depending on your tastes. Some times it IS fun just to grab a platoon of tanks and go mow down the enemy but in general I would prefer the infantry lethality toned down a bit so that you could function with something like less than 80-90% personnel losses on the losing side of every battle.



Tejszd -> RE: Quick question: (11/2/2008 7:03:11 PM)

Uncle_Joe,

I will agree with you that Infantry cover could probably be increased when prone but having said that hiding behind a bush is just that; hiding and will not protect you.

But I can not agree with you that WAR is like CC4. The maps were much smaller in CC4 and many times the deployment zones did not have cover thus in minutes all vehicles and tanks were wrecks which is not the case anymore.



Fred98 -> RE: Quick question: (11/3/2008 3:05:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Is it still a tank orgy?



Experiment.

Try different levels of difficulity.

Note the 2 sides have their own separate levels of difficulity

Try it from both sides.

At the harder level there is less armour.

Set both sides to the harder level. You are lucky to see much armour at all!

-






Tactics -> RE: Quick question: (11/3/2008 3:30:28 AM)

Joe, I hate the tanks also. For CC3 the first thing I did was get 'Real Infantry', and I waited to buy COI until there was 'Real Infantry' that was compatable for COI. Have you tired it? It removes all heavy armor and just leaves very small number of light tanks for each side.

I don't really remember if there was a real infantry version for this CC version.



Fred98 -> RE: Quick question: (11/3/2008 5:55:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tactics

Joe, I hate the tanks also. For CC3 the first thing I did was get 'Real Infantry', and I waited to buy COI until there was 'Real Infantry' that was compatable for COI.




You don't need to mod anything. All you need to do is experiment with the game settings.

Back in the days of CC4 I made a few 2 map and 3 map scenarios. I didn't mod anythng - i just adjusted the game settings.

-






Tactics -> RE: Quick question: (11/3/2008 5:32:10 PM)

I meant Uncle Joe, not you.



Uncle_Joe -> RE: Quick question: (11/3/2008 8:31:20 PM)

Well thats the thing. I actually like the tanks in the game. They are fun and require differing tactics. But when you get 6-7 on a side, they dominate. Infantry ceases to be worthwhile for the most part (you need one or two to spot or draw fire and then let the armor annihilate anything that becomes spotted). The kill rates just seem insanely high vs infantry.

The battles where its mostly INF battlegroups with maybe a supporting AFV or so are fun. When its 6+ tanks on one or both sides, the game quickly degenerates IMO. Like I said above, armored warfare is NOT CC's strong point (at all). So when there is that much on the field (supporting only 12-20 actual infantrymen!!), the game loses a lot of its charm. The tanks more or less dominate play which downplays many of the more interesting aspects of the game IMO

I think its more a question of force balance. If you can only have 15 units and units are half squads, then the number of AFVs possible in any given battle should be no more than 3 or MAYBE 4 IMO. Otherwise the armor/infantry ratio becomes quite screwed up (realism-wise) and that tend to break the combat results IMO.

Any way it can be modded to limit the amount of armor that can be in any particular battlegroup?

Thanks



Fred98 -> RE: Quick question: (11/3/2008 9:12:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Any way it can be modded to limit the amount of armor that can be in any particular battlegroup?



Don't mod! Utilise the options settings!

Don't mod! Utilise the options settings!


( I hate repeating myself)


Don't mod! Utilise the options settings!

Don't mod! Utilise the options settings!

-





Tactics -> RE: Quick question: (11/3/2008 10:03:56 PM)

The thing is Joe98 - Your solution might be the best solution for eveyone. If the settings are adjusted for fewer tanks you would put AI and Human settings on 'Veteran', yes?

..and that is fine - BUT

The AI can be less than challenging; and, one of the few ways get a challenge and still do the grand camp is to set the Human on Veteran and the AI on Rookie, thus giving the human fewer points/resources and the AI more points/resources. However the result is very often that the AI then has access to tons of tanks, ala Tank Orgy.



Andrew Williams -> RE: Quick question: (11/3/2008 10:28:54 PM)

CC4 and CC5 have been Modded to reflect what you are talking about.

Generically these are known as "Vetmods".

I've heard whispers that something may be in the wind for WaR.



Neil N -> RE: Quick question: (11/4/2008 1:05:38 AM)

Good thing that we only included about 1/3 - 1/2 the amount of tanks per BG size than reality



Tactics -> RE: Quick question: (11/4/2008 1:36:42 AM)

Another reason I dislike the bulge - And still sad that the guys at panther games decided to do that one.



Uncle_Joe -> RE: Quick question: (11/4/2008 1:45:48 PM)

quote:

Good thing that we only included about 1/3 - 1/2 the amount of tanks per BG size than reality


Out of curiosity, what ratio of infantry was scaled down too? It just seems that in any particular area with armored units, the infantry/armor ration seems really high in favor of the armor, even for a Bulge game. I haven't made any exhaustive study of the real OOBs, but I would rather doubt that going into any particular town or crossroads it would be 6-7 tanks and 3 squads of infantry + support weapons. Ditto for defense of said areas. And thats exactly what I see time and time again (which produces the 'tank orgy' feel).

So, if the number of tanks per BG is 1/3 -1/2 reality, is the infantry ratio in said BGs closers to 1/10? Also note that the actual FORCE POOL for the BGs is less relevant than what you see in-game. It doesnt matter if there 30 Rifle Teams and 10 tanks in the force pool if only 15 units can be used at once and armor occupies 6-7 slots. The ratio IN BATTLE is more important IMO, regardless of the pools.



Uncle_Joe -> RE: Quick question: (11/4/2008 1:48:13 PM)

quote:

CC4 and CC5 have been Modded to reflect what you are talking about.

Generically these are known as "Vetmods".

I've heard whispers that something may be in the wind for WaR.


Sweet, thanks. I remember there were mods for CC3 (and the remake, I believe) that pretty much removed almost everything bigger than an armored car. Thats not really what I want. I dont mind the larger AFVs, but I dont really care for large numbers of AFVs in any particular engagement. IMO, the game just plays so much better when its mostly an infantry fight.

Thanks for the info. I'll keep an eye out.




Tejszd -> RE: Quick question: (11/4/2008 6:41:24 PM)

quote:

So, if the number of tanks per BG is 1/3 -1/2 reality, is the infantry ratio in said BGs closers to 1/10? Also note that the actual FORCE POOL for the BGs is less relevant than what you see in-game. It doesnt matter if there 30 Rifle Teams and 10 tanks in the force pool if only 15 units can be used at once and armor occupies 6-7 slots. The ratio IN BATTLE is more important IMO, regardless of the pools.


I'm not sure what ratio the infantry are at, would be interesting to know.

As for the forcepool it may not matter in the 1st few days of the campaign but it will make a huge difference later. I'm 16 days in as the Germans and have to run my few BG's with tanks around trying to defeat the US armour BG's that arrived as reinforcements.



Andrew Williams -> RE: Quick question: (11/4/2008 7:25:13 PM)

The BG's are quite varied

There are Armor heavy BG's and the are BG's very light on for anrmor, and you'll be wishing fore more.



[image]local://upfiles/2239/FA4DD3092BCC479DB1CF034E19B044DB.jpg[/image]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.421875