RE: disbanded BGs

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: disbanded BGs

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: disbanded BGs - 11/25/2008 6:19:11 AM

mikwarleo

Posts: 70
Joined: 6/27/2006
Status: offline

When I heard there was a remake of CC on the way I was very happy. Finally a bug fix and perhaps some improvement and modernisation...

Sadly, I agree with KapHelmut and the other people who are disappointed with this game.

On point... development 'oversights' (call it what you will) don't get much bigger than this one regarding the disband rule - in the new game, like CC5, when disbanded entire BATTLE GROUPS can teleport over (or through) enemy lines, out of the clutches of the enemy, to safety and then be rushed off to the front to fight again. If this is how it was intended, I almost wonder why they bother having a strategic map at all? It's�little more than a�mindless war of attrition.

It seems Matrix would have us believe they simply didn't notice, or have a different interpretation of the game rules...�

The CC5 manual states (p32):

quote:

If a Battle Group voluntarily disbands while it is out of supply, it loses all of its vehicles, and 50% of its infantry units are captured before they return to the group's supply depot. If an unsupplied Battle Group is forced to disband involuntarily, because it is forced off a map, it loses all of its vehicles, then 75% of its infantry units are captured. This can be a crippling loss.

It could hardly be any clearer: 'This can be a crippling loss.' The only possible interpretation is that the disband rule is intended to apply to the force pool.

So what's the truth?� -
1. The manual is wrong.
2. Matrix didn't read the rules.
3. Matrix didn't pass english comprehension.
4. KapHelmut is right.

I think it's #4 particularly noting the other examples raised like pathing (while improved it's clearly�is still an issue, why?).

Further,�*why* does the 'new' game still require port forwarding?! This is 2008 ...

�With simple long standing issues like these not resolved I am thankful I've not purchased the game.

Personally I'll not I even consider paying for this 'game' (seemingly little more than a glorified and expensive mod)�until I see a quality product on offer. I've seen nothing to suggest that this game is remotely close to being worth the AUD$60 (one time download) - AUD$90 (box delivered) price tag.

< Message edited by mikwarleo -- 11/25/2008 6:23:42 AM >

(in reply to Moss Orleni)

Post #: 31

RE: disbanded BGs - 11/25/2008 9:34:14 AM

Andrew Williams

Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline

The rule is acting as it was originally designed.

We have checked it and it is working.

The manual may be badly worded and I can understand the confusion.

I'll just re-state , the rule is acting as it was originally designed.

But, as I say we are looking at changing how the rule works... if that is possible..... for the reasons stated.

ie. We also think the penalty for being disbanded while out of supply should be higher.

(in reply to Moss Orleni)

Post #: 32

RE: disbanded BGs - 11/25/2008 10:00:04 AM

nietsche

Posts: 55
Joined: 11/25/2008
From: Ozzieland
Status: offline

Fixing this so that the penalty applies to all the BG is a good thing IMHO. That replicates more of the real strategic affect of disbanding/routing/surrendering.

_____________________________

Hard work is a good way to succeed. There is less competition that way...

(in reply to Andrew Williams)

Post #: 33

RE: disbanded BGs - 11/25/2008 2:26:52 PM

GS_Schimpf

Posts: 66
Joined: 3/21/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

I also would like to see the rule being applied to all units of the BG, not just the active ones. The active ones are already killed most of the time the rule applies at all. So there is no point in keeping it that way imho.

It would be really cool and a more realistic approach if a new patch could change this to affect the whole BG forcepool.

THX in advance

(in reply to nietsche)

Post #: 34

RE: disbanded BGs - 11/25/2008 10:29:07 PM

crushingleeek_slith

Posts: 89
Joined: 11/24/2008
Status: offline

I also would like to see the rule being applied to all units of the BG, not just the active ones.

As a long time CC fan, kaphelmet has a good reason to be disappointed and frustrated. I know what its like when your favorite game of years...just doesn't seem to get it in the next version. And he makes solid points.

At the same time, matrix developers so far seem very responsive to player concerns. so here it is: More disbanding penalty please! 75% of force pool! not active units!

As long as I'm asking, here's whats on my christmas wish list:
give players more flexibility in ordering off-map arty (don't limit to one per group per turn)
introduce jeeps and trucks for quicker transport
increase the 15 active unit limit!! (or release another game just like CC on a slightly larger scale!)

(in reply to GS_Schimpf)

Post #: 35