Command and Control (Full Version)

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



Message

11Bravo -> Command and Control (4/29/2001 7:42:00 AM)

Command and Control confounds me. From reading the manual and lurking through some posts to this board, it seems the intent for this option is to simulate commanding a battalion. Not using this option is sometimes compared to playing "arcade style". In general, the expectation seems to be that one should use this option. I would like to use this option better. However, when I tried it, I found that I still had to move every unit and fire every gun myself. The real effect on my play was that it seemed to limit my choices and abilities to do what I wanted to do. For example, with it on, I would select a formation, assign it an objective. Attempt to maneuver to the object. Maybe fire at stuff or not. Sometimes, I ran out of orders that kept me from deploying or reacting to enemy fire the way I would have preferred to with the option off. It was like wearing a straightjacket. Are there tips and tricks for using this option better? What is the standard drill for those hardcore gamers who always use this option? Finally, is it necessary for playing by PBEM or online, or in leagues?



nimu -> (4/29/2001 7:57:00 AM)

Hi Bravo11,i think c&c doesn't reproduce the battlefield reality.In fact during a battle the squads ,if the're not given any order from the HQ,they do not stay there like statues waiting to be shot down.I think it's a kind of option to make the game more difficult.I usually turn it off and i think in pbem games this sould be off. Regards



Paul Vebber -> (4/29/2001 9:18:00 AM)

The idea of C2 in the game is to get you to think in terms o fmanuevering platoons and not individual squads. By having to "vector" your platoons toward objectives and have to keep them together, you suffer more the historical restrictions that battalion commanders were under. Split your platoons up and you can find squads stuck out of communications trying to figure out what to do. It is not nearly the "straighjacket" tha thisotrical commanders were restricted by, and is only meant to reward the player who can plan the platoon movements well and orchestrate the interactions well. [ April 28, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]



Redleg -> (4/29/2001 9:37:00 AM)

Look at the flip side (C/C off). You have total control to move every unit in all sorts of ways. Move forward, backward, to the side all in a single turn. No military force I have ever been involved with was able to have the sort of freedom to maneuver as C/C turned off permits. C/C forces you to have a plan, know the capability of your force and set your troops in motion toward some objective you have set. Fail to have a plan and adhere to it and you will almost certainly have command control problems. Probably the most realistic representation command control I have seen in a computer game. At first, it does require some learning and discipline but, IMO, is well worth the effort. After playing with C/C turned on for a while, it becomes second nature. Now I groan and reluctantly agree to C/C off games (sometimes).



nimu -> (4/29/2001 10:14:00 AM)

mmmmmmhhhhhh.......ok,i think i better turn down my hat(I don't know if this idiomatic form exists in english!!)in front of these two veterans.They know for sure a lot more than i know.So you guys are right.Probably i was just always too lazy and have lack of patience to appreciate the c&c. I'll try to get there. Bravo:did u recieved my last private mess:?it tells me "FYI" as a confirmation.What does it means????



Reg -> (4/29/2001 2:40:00 PM)

The following scenario is something I posted last year in response to a question like this.
quote:

For example a platoon of infantry (without radios) are all adjacent to the command squad (for example 'B0'). B0 sets the objective flag to hex 22,33 (Hill 41). All squads now have 22,33 set as their objective hex. Every one moves off toward their objective but during the turn B3 has strayed more that 3 hexes away from B0. B0 decides that the platoon is now required more urgently at 18,11 (enemy counter attack at the neighbouring village). He expends the 3 orders and the objective for B0, B1, and B2 is now 18,11. But B3 is still heading for 22,33 because he was out of contact when the objective was changed!!!! Being out of contact means B3 has no orders and he needs one order to move in a direction not toward his last ordered objective (22,33). The squad is still obeying the last instructions they received!!! The only way to get B3 on track to the current platoon objective is to get him back in contact when the new objective will be passed on to him. This can be done by sending B0 (or A0) after them and getting within 3 hexes of B3 (or re-establishing radio contact if equipped).
The intent of C&C is restrict the players omnipresent powers (of being in total control of every unit on the field) and limit the units actions to something that would have been expected from a real unit in that situation with the information they would have had available. By the way, from the above you might be able to figure out the advantages that a high tech-nation with lots of radios would have over an early war Russian/Chinese army played with C&C on!!! Consider the command problems of the 10 vehicle early Russian tank company who must remain within 3 hexes to stay in contact!! (Either that or use a lot of "Wait here until I get back with your new instructions" type orders). I think too many German players give away their biggest advantage by agreeing to C&C off!!! With these restrictions in place, it can be seen that national armies are encouraged to use historical tactics because they will be the ones that work the best for the equipment they use. In the Russian example above, you would expect to see closely spaced assaults with few deviations on objectives. This would equate quite nicely with the historical Russian set piece battles. Fighting Germans or Americans would produce a more fluid or free flowing battles as the sides are more capable of manuevering for position and reacting to their enemies tactics. Reg. [ April 30, 2001: Message edited by: Reg ] [ April 30, 2001: Message edited by: Reg ]



nimu -> (4/29/2001 10:32:00 PM)

Reg,i'm sorry if you interpreted my last post as something ironic.Wasn't that.It's probably because of my lack of confidence with english lenguage,so my words may sound arrogant.But honestly i can say that the meaning of my message was that you're for sure right as far as u know this game much better than i do and that i trust your judgement about c&c.Sorry for the missunderstanding. regards



Drex -> (4/30/2001 2:12:00 AM)

Most of us SPWAW players need to play with C&C on more often.As Redleg said before it becomes second-nature after a while. No one can truly say he has mastered this game until he has mastered it with C&C on. I have decided that when Ver5 is online I will try to play most of my games with C&C. I say "try" because my pbem opponent must agree to it. It may not be a perfect system but it will only improve when more players start using it. there probably should be a tutorial on C&C.



Mikimoto -> (4/30/2001 5:02:00 AM)

Hello. I have been playing SP3 with C&C on during two years (In fact I play it sometimes now). My question is if C&C in SPWAW works equally to SP3? Perhaps, if the mechanics are identycal I will give a try in WAW. I liked C&C in SP3 because it was possible to test different technologic levels (radios) in different armies, added to command levels for the nations involved(doctrine & tactics). Thanks and Saludos.



Reg -> (4/30/2001 3:11:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Urquhart: Reg,i'm sorry if you interpreted my last post as something ironic.
Urquhart: I'm afraid it is really my place to apologise!!! I did not mean for my reply to read like that. :( It wasn't intended to be personal at all (e-mail is such a poor medium to convey meanings. :rolleyes: ) I really should proof read my postings with a more critical eye. The questions were merely to intended to encourage thought about the historical reasons behind what appears to be such a artificial system on the surface. I do not judge anyone whether they use C&C or not. However, I feel that anyone who doesn't use it forgoes a lot of what the game offers and will miss the opportunity to understand the reasons why small unit actions were conducted the way they were at the time. Reg. P.S. I'd better edit that post.



nimu -> (4/30/2001 3:26:00 PM)

It's ok Reg.Do not apologise.You're right:e-mails sometimes can be diffucult to be interpretated,especially for non english speakers.It doesn't matter at all.By the way i want to try to play with c&c on 'cause i'm feeling a bit estranged from all of u guys!I'll practice.I promise. Ciao



Reg -> (4/30/2001 5:08:00 PM)

Cool. What a friendly board we have here. Please see the edits in my post above. Reg P.S. (FYI - For your information)



11Bravo -> (4/30/2001 5:48:00 PM)

I am also committed to learning the Command and Control option. I agree that the restrictions it places on maneuvering forces is desirable from the realism point of view. I will rereread the manual and practice some more. Then I will come back with any specific questions. In the meantime, please stay within 3 hexes of me.



nimu -> (4/30/2001 6:04:00 PM)

Yes,i totally agree with u Reg about how friendly is this forum!!!I read your edit:you didn't have to do that,but now it sounds more "aggressive".This morning i tried to do a battle with c&c on:uk vs ge(1944) I had 1 plt of 17 pdr At mounted on a plt of heavy Hippo trucks.I wanted to divide 'em in pairs of 2 on both of my flanks,but after 2 turns 2 of them(those without radio)remained without orders.Can't i divide a platoon??? thanks



eric.swallie -> (4/30/2001 6:52:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Drex: Most of us SPWAW players need to play with C&C on more often.As Redleg said before it becomes second-nature after a while. No one can truly say he has mastered this game until he has mastered it with C&C on. I have decided that when Ver5 is online I will try to play most of my games with C&C. I say "try" because my pbem opponent must agree to it. It may not be a perfect system but it will only improve when more players start using it. there probably should be a tutorial on C&C.
My biggest complaint about the C&C option is this. You set an objective for a platoon of tanks to be a ridgeline. You then want to play the jack-in-the-box game. You pop up on the ridge shoot but now you are unable to retreat behind the ridge again. You must just sit in the open for another turn, spend command points to set your obj to behind the ridge, then drop back under cover. This is not acceptable. We need a bit more leeway with how tight the constraints are placed. Say you are free to move anywhere within 5 hexes of the obj freely. You are not really changing your objective, just maneuvering around to attack/defend this spot.



lnp4668 -> (4/30/2001 6:58:00 PM)

C&C have been the goal of generals since the ancient Romans. The ability of commanding officer to control their troop effectively have leads to many victory over unruly mobs throughout history. Simulate it in a game is a bit more difficulty however. Even though the system in SPWAW is not perfect, it is a reasonable alternative to keeps the player from having a God-like ability to control their units (unlike the commander on the field) Urquhart, the best way to keep unit in control if you wants to split a platoon is to attach it to another group. In your example, the 17pdrs would be on loan to another company.



Larry Holt -> (4/30/2001 7:13:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Eric: My biggest complaint about the C&C option is this. You set an objective for a platoon of tanks to be a ridgeline. You then want to play the jack-in-the-box game. You pop up on the ridge shoot but now you are unable to retreat behind the ridge again. You must just sit in the open for another turn, spend command points to set your obj to behind the ridge, then drop back under cover. This is not acceptable. We need a bit more leeway with how tight the constraints are placed. Say you are free to move anywhere within 5 hexes of the obj freely. You are not really changing your objective, just maneuvering around to attack/defend this spot.
Double agree with this. C&C does a fair job of simulating the maneuver resrictions that commanders are under. However, it falls down for the maneuver elements that you mention. If a platoon is attacked from the side/rear, its leader or even other squad leaders would reasonably turn and maneuver against the threat. This is internal SOP to the platoon and doctrine for most armies but in SPWaW I need to have my leader spend orders for someting that should be second nature to a trained force.



Alexandra -> (4/30/2001 11:17:00 PM)

[QB][QUOTE]Originally posted by Eric: [qb]My biggest complaint about the C&C option is this. You set an objective for a platoon of tanks to be a ridgeline. You then want to play the jack-in-the-box game. You pop up on the ridge shoot but now you are unable to retreat behind the ridge again. You must just sit in the open for another turn, spend command points to set your obj to behind the ridge, then drop back under cover. This is not acceptable. We need a bit more leeway with how tight the constraints are placed. Say you are free to move anywhere within 5 hexes of the obj freely. Well, this is not necessarily true, at least in my (admitedly limited) C+C experience. What I've tended to notice is that possible movement hexes are not highlighted when movement is not towards the objective, but, you can usually get a hex or two - or more - movement towards non objective areas anyway, by manually clicking a hex at a time. It seems to have a much higher movement cost, but I've done it succesfully with both Russians ('42) and Czechs ('38). I'd imagine, though I don't know for sure, that it would be easier with forces like the US and Germany.



Charles2222 -> (5/1/2001 12:01:00 AM)

Alexandra: What you'll notice, is that if you just step one hex outside the shaded area (let's say the backward one, which if the unit isn't recon, and does have an objective, will be non-shaded) it'll cost one or more orders (not sure of the amount). BUT, once that first hex of non-shaded hexes is stepped into, your entire movement radius changes, indeed, to inculde even rearward hexes "away" from the objective. The thing is, you step one hex outside your objective shaded area, it penalizes you then, and there's no such thing as an additional penalty. It's a one time penalty and you don't have to pay more, because you were that many more hexes away from the original shaded area that you started off the turn with. Each new turn repaints the shaded area, to which, one hex ventured outside of, will again cost one or more points, but the penalty is always on the first hex, not on any more after that, for, as you'll see, "every" hex within it's reach switches to what you might call it's objective shading. Next turn, it'll have lost the 360 degree shading, because it hasn't broke it's orders yet for the turn.



Antonius -> (5/1/2001 12:20:00 AM)

If you want to be able to retreat behind a ridge you can do any of the following: - set the objective on the ridge since units have freedom of movement at some range around the objective - move only if there are enough orders at higher levels to be able to retreat - move onto the ridge one turn or two after setting the obkective so the platoon commander has regained enough command points to issue a retreat order. - of course keep the platoon commander behind so that he doesn't get killed/routed at the critical moment When I play I consider it simulates the time needed to coordinate a whole platoon - in a tank sim like panzer elite getting the platoon to use pop-up tactics is very time-consuming and can hardly be done if you have other urgent problems to worry about ! Remember also that in a PBEM game your opponent faces exactly the same restrictions as you so one main tactical concern is to disorganizing his troops, disrupt his command chain, engage his troops at unexpected places, force him to spend as all his command points each turn, etc



ktierney -> (5/5/2001 6:42:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Redleg: Now I groan and reluctantly agree to C/C off games (sometimes).
If C&C was implemented well, I would agree to use it. But it is not a good implementation. For instance, the only way to describe an objective is to move a flag... a single flag does not describe "Invest that ridge, intelligently" Most often, I find that C&C eliminates almost all tactical doctrine except for the dumbest and most rigid. The objective is good, but the implementation is not up to the game. sez eye.



Cona -> (5/5/2001 11:25:00 AM)

Does anybody have a good idea about a better implementation of C&C ? We need to stop complaining and start contributing. I've thinking of a better system for C&C but knowing nothing about this i can't help. Saludos a todos, Cona.



Reg -> (5/5/2001 5:51:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Freeway: If C&C was implemented well, I would agree to use it. But it is not a good implementation. For instance, the only way to describe an objective is to move a flag... a single flag does not describe "Invest that ridge, intelligently" Most often, I find that C&C eliminates almost all tactical doctrine except for the dumbest and most rigid. The objective is good, but the implementation is not up to the game. sez eye.
Everyone agrees that it's not perfect but it's the best we have and I still believe that it is one of the central concepts in the game. I think that many players may have the wrong expectations of C&C. It is not a tool intended to micro-manage your troops but to represent the inherent inertia of a large organisation. In the instance you describe above, the intention is simply to keep your forces attacking toward the ridge. As long as you keep moving in the general direction of the objective, C&C will not have a great affect on your troops. Where it really has an an effect is if your force is suddenly attacked from the rear!! Without C&C your entire force is aware of the danger within a single game turn 'of a few minutes' and begins to react immediately. With C&C on, the commander, if he still has orders, will turn his units to face the treat (by moving the objective flags) but there are limitations of what can be achived in three minutes (one turn). He will eventually get all of his forces aligned to face the new threat but it will take time!!! Disorganised forces will descend into chaos if elements are out of contact. This sounds pretty much like what I would expect to happen in the real thing. It also gives a flanking attack the disruptive effect they historically had on a formation. If you find the objectives too constrictive and you are changing objectives every couple of turns, perhaps you should be picking objectives that are more long term and will not be achieved in the next couple of turns. Stick with C&C as I feel that it will give a greater appreciation of history than a game played without it. My 5c {- 33% (tax) x 0.49 (exchange rate) = 1.6c} worth. Reg. [ May 05, 2001: Message edited by: Reg ]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9697266