C&C Yes or No (Full Version)

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



Message

challenge -> C&C Yes or No (4/11/2003 1:19:56 AM)

Command and Control is one of the options adding a sense of really commanding a WWII battalion. In the early years of the campaign the German command structure gave it an advantage over the Russians because they were able to respond more quickly to changes in situation. There was more fluidity and adaptability in both defense and offense. This was part of the National Characteristics of the formations in WWII and is still an important aspect of large unit operations today.

As I browsed the Opponents Wanted forum, I noticed a large number of CC OFF requests and wondered if anyone, besides myself, preferred the added challenge of turning this option ON. Hense the poll.



Hawk -> I vote on...... (4/11/2003 2:32:54 AM)

I like games that are Historic!!....:D :D :D I want to feel the way the Generals felt looking over their maps. If the Russians didn't have radios in their Tanks during the early years so be it.....It adds more to the realism.......Pretty much all the games i played in it has been left out :( :( for play balance i guess.



rbrunsman -> (4/11/2003 3:51:12 AM)

First and foremost, SPWAW is a game to me. Thus, I want the ability to act as the all knowing "god" and move my peices wherever/whenever I want to without the constraints caused by C&C ON. SPWAW is a fancy chess match to me.

Maneuvering around, setting up ambushes, perfectly orchestrating attacks and getting the Kill is the fun of this game for me. C&C On limits my ability to do this, so I don't like it.

Note: I have said "game," not "simulation" so don't rip me up and down by saying, "It's not realistic with C&C Off."



Orzel Bialy -> Good Lord.... (4/11/2003 4:46:56 AM)

put the lid back on this can of worms! :eek:

Let's just say it's another one of those "choices" that some people like.....and some don't. ;)

The easiest way to handle it is to request a game with it ON...you will still get hits from willing opponents. I can play with it ON or OFF...so it's not that much of an issue with me. ;)

Sorry if the opening sentence seems like I'm jumping down your throat....I'm not. It's just that the last time this topic came up some people turned it into a "I'm a more advanced player than you because I use this or that ON/OFF" thread...and there's no need for that here. :)



challenge -> Worms are tasty, Orzel (4/11/2003 5:16:59 AM)

I should have put the third option: all or none of the above, but that wasn't in the binary thought I had at the time. (And I never did a poll so when I did think of it, it was too late since I can't edit the poll question.)

I think some of the other selection criteria for opponents is a lot more debate prone than this, but I do see your point. I don't think I could claim to be a better player than either you or rbrunsman based on preferrence selection: there's a lot more to the game than that. ;)

I didn't consdier the possibility that a community such as this, where experienced players go out of their way to tell new players the tactics they use to improve the competition, would be disrupted by a request for a preferrence head count.

My curiosity will simply not allow me not to ask a question that I ponder more than once. :confused: :eek:

If this thread gets uncivil, I will ask the moderator to close it myself.



Irinami -> Re: Worms are tasty, Orzel (4/11/2003 6:19:56 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by challenge
[B]I don't think I could claim to be a better player than either you or rbrunsman based on preferrence selection: there's a lot more to the game than that. ;)[/B][/QUOTE]

Thus proving your wisdom. This came up before, and while a flamewar wasn't started, it certainly wasn't a cold war either. ;)

I prefer off. My unit commanders would be promoted by me, retained by me, or replaced by me. Thus, C&C-ON would countermand my game paradigm.



Klinkenhoffen -> (4/11/2003 7:44:33 AM)

I prefer C&C on but will happily play with it off if thats what an oponent wants.



Belisarius -> (4/11/2003 1:30:00 PM)

I prefer to play with it OFF in BPEM, but sure, if anyone wants to I'm all for honing my l33t skillz with C&C. :p :D



Lars -> Re: Good Lord.... (4/11/2003 4:10:48 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orzel Bialy
[B]put the lid back on this can of worms! :eek:
[/B][/QUOTE]
Yes this may be the case, but…

[SIZE=3][B]IMHO[/B][/SIZE]
I think the use of C&C On, is essential to make the game perform its best. When played with it off the units’ values should need a considerable re-work. Best thing would be if someone would take the time to make a “C&C Off mod” to be used. But this is of course a huge project. :rolleyes:

Something else to look forward to is a tutorial for “how to use C&C” to be added to all the other tutorials. Since C&C makes it a whole different game, it’s sad to see that new players stick with the game without C&C and never takes it any further.

As stated before, the use of C&C has nothing to do with player skill. But the two different options make it two different games.

/Lars



acrosome -> C&C (4/12/2003 12:22:02 AM)

Trying to keep it civil...

I immeasurably prefer C&C ON. I believe that this is after all a WAR game, not a chess match. Innumerable sources testify to FRICTION in war. It's part of the game.

(I'm one of those people who HATE "Warcraft" and similar games.)

That said, I'm quite willing to play with C&C OFF if somebody else has a strong preference. (I'm almost always the Russians, anyway, so this is to my advantage.) Everybody has their preferences- that's why I advocated strongly for a C&C toggle in CL.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (4/12/2003 4:11:13 AM)

I voted for on, but must confess, I only play with it on against humans.

Against the computer I leave it off.

But it is my opinion, on is the best way to get the perfect game.

Hey I AM after all an ASLer eh, detail is detail. Can't have to much detail eh.



slehtine -> Re: C&C (4/12/2003 5:03:35 AM)

.[QUOTE]Originally posted by acrosome
[B]I immeasurably prefer C&C ON. I believe that this is after all a WAR game, not a chess match. Innumerable sources testify to FRICTION in war. It's part of the game.[/B][/QUOTE]

You're total opposite to me :D

I prefer it off, because this is war GAME to me.

I've also been playing bit with C&C on, but I did not get feeling of confusion and friction. It was just another obstacle to me.

-Sasa



VikingNo2 -> (4/12/2003 7:52:21 AM)

I though I could stay away from the CC Off or On thing, but I guess I'm weak

My 2cent

I perfer to play fast CC off is the best for that, to be honset it just takes me to long to set up, and too long to play the turns with CC On.

Someone stated this earlier I believe, if there is a simple CC on turorial then I think more players would learn it; it all boils down to what your opion of fun is, for example some people think it fun to watch the ugly uniformed misirable GreenBay Packers( so they won a couple Super Bowls ) while others like watching the rather sharp looking Vikings ( very sensible people I might add )


SPWAW is great and its free CC On or Off. I like off. I prefer games that are not logisticly driven. When it starts coming down to how many orders you have and how to get more that IMHO is not whats fun, I like having to worry about ammo, wish I had to worry about fuel, and reacting to the enemys moves but thats just me. Other players just like and prefer the added friction of command and control management.



challenge -> (4/12/2003 9:39:24 AM)

I agree about the fuel and ammo. I really like artillery, for example, and always include some on-board in my mix. With h2h changes to indirect fire -- limited information on casualties, howizers using it -- it's even better. I started relying too heavily on it and learned to be a little more frugal after running out of ammo during a defense mission. Fuel would mean the same would be true of AFV -- over use leads to not having it when you need it.

In my case, it's one of the reason I like C&C -- I can't run out of fuel, but if I overcommit too early getting formations where I need them is more difficult.

I don't care for reduced squads, however. Even if it adds a touch more realism, it's a bit over the top for me.



WhiteRook -> (4/12/2003 10:46:13 AM)

Always one of those you either love it or hate it type areas to be sure! I find that for me I play with it on quite a lot. Designing scenarios I have to remind myself to keep it turned off - unless I specifically state that the scenario was designed to be played with CC on.
Bottom line is that I have had so many good times with the game either way that does not matter for me. ;)



Procrustes -> (4/13/2003 1:05:18 AM)

I generally like all the realism options in SP, but C&C is one that I've never taken to. I like spotting, the contact rules, reduced squads, reduced ammo, nationality characteristics, etc. I like detail - can spend days playing and replaying games against the AI. And I like the idea of C&C and keep trying it. But what always drives me away is that it seems to make my units stupid. I mean, I can understand not being able to follow orders you can't get, but the movement rules make is so that a unit that has suddenly come under fire needs to expend 'orders' to essentally 'duck' (move out of it's plotted tragectory). And it means that units need to spend orders to back up after firing pot-shots from around an obsticle during my turn.

The idea of a 'how to' manual for C&C is a good one - I'd be a reader. At times I think that C&C just sucks, and other times I think I just must not have the hang of it. Or perhaps it's the kind of games I play - I almost always play against the AI. Always looking for tips/suggestions.....
Thanks for the civil discussion of the topic.



mogami -> C&C (4/13/2003 2:29:42 AM)

Hi, C&C is a pain in the butt. I'll say that without C&C on the National characteristics and units values are not correct. Also the feel of the battle moves more to that of a naval combat then a tactical land battle. (Many independent units operating in the same area but not always reflecting what the larger formation is doing)(I mean units are not dependant on their own leaders for direction, and this is a major factor in battle)
C&C is also time consuming. You have to actually plan ahead and set objectives while deploying. I've found it best to set objectives that are in sight of the units.
This does mean in poor terrain or limited visibility you need to keep the units closer together (especially units without radios) Poor terrain uses more orders then open terrain. (Ever been in a game where the enemy perfectly coordinates attacks in multiple areas?)
C&C off is a lot easier. But this results in battlefield tactics and possibilities that do not accurately reflect what occurred or could have occurred. (As far as I know, no military in WW2 communicated via telepathy) Does this mean players who use it are better then those that don't? No, but it does illustrate they are more interested in a WW2 battle with the nations involved then in a "excercise To be proficient in the science of war you have to be able to handle what actually takes place and not what you would ideally want your units to achieve.
C&C off allows players to move in formations and across terrain in manners that the actual historic units might not have been able to.
One reason C&C off is required is that many players like to play short battles and C&C on slows movement down.
So C&C is really most effective and usefull in large map, many turn, high point value games, where both players are not concerned with how long the battle takes.



dox44 -> C&C (4/14/2003 4:21:41 AM)

i don't like C&C but use it upon request...

von casebier



TheOverlord -> Voted off.... (4/14/2003 7:38:10 AM)

Dont like it.
I have played several games with it on vs pc and humans (I think they were human...;) )

All it brings to the game for me is annoyance.

When I am in command, I am god and my little soldiers will obey my command at the moment, not the one they got at the beginning! I reserve the right to change my mind!

Too long to set up a game - I like larger battles so using C&C turns the set up into a 2 hour chore.

It takes away the flexability to move units from cover to cover as they advance.

Units should be able to move a short distance in ANY direction before dipping into command points. That would of made it a little more realistic. After all, a stuart would would rarely keep driving strait towards a Tiger simply because that was his last order and no one at hq is available to take his call to give him new orders...

I dont like what it brings to the game - makes it too tedious, the last thing I need after a long day at work...

In the immortal words of Forest Gump:
"Thats all I got to say about that."



BryanMelvin -> (4/14/2003 7:57:17 AM)

I perfer CC off on large scenarios and Mega Campaigns but Like it on small scale pbem games.

I do not think using CC on effects realism effects of a large battle/scenario/game all that much. You still make mistakes and fail to move units. Just my Opinion



Procrustes -> Re: Voted off.... (4/15/2003 1:09:24 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheOverlord
[B]
It takes away the flexability to move units from cover to cover as they advance.

Units should be able to move a short distance in ANY direction before dipping into command points. That would of made it a little more realistic.
[/B][/QUOTE]


I agree. Any realism that C&C may add to the game is completely obviated by this for me.

As far as keeping my units together, seems it's wise to do that whether or not you are using C&C - they rally a lot better that way.

But these discussions always make me feel I should try C&C on again, one more time.....



mogami -> C&C (4/15/2003 2:41:59 AM)

Originally posted by TheOverlord

"It takes away the flexability to move units from cover to cover as they advance.

Units should be able to move a short distance in ANY direction before dipping into command points. That would of made it a little more realistic"

Hi, This means to me you are setting the objectives too far away.
If you set the objectives close by you can make those cover to cover movements. Of course then you also have to assign a new objective once you reach one. If you set the objective too far the units do lose flexabilty. In combat unit commanders have to issue orders on a regular bases. They can't just say "Go capture that objective" It's more like "1st Platoon capture that farmhouse 200 yards NW of my position. 2nd Platoon provide over watch, 3rd Platoon move 50 yards S of my position and await further orders"

Then 10 minutes later. "1st Platoon set up overwatch position, 2nd platoon move 100 yards NW of farmhouse to base of hill, 3rd Platoon follow me."

C&C adds a whole new phase of game, it does add complexity and time. It also adds realism since where and what the unit leaders going and doing becomes critical. It's a differant game. I enjoy the C&C off games alot. But if you want more battlefield feeling the C&C on is one way to add it. Without C&C units can go where they are needed ignoring the reality of combat units do not move in this manner.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.953125