Boxed in at Arnhem bridge

Close Combat – Last Stand Arnhem is a highly enhanced new release of Close Combat, using the latest Close Combat engine with many additional improvements. Its design is based on the critically acclaimed Close Combat – A Bridge Too Far, originally developed by Atomic Games, as well as the more recent Close Combat: The Longest Day. This is the most ambitious and most improved of the new Close Combat releases, but along with all the enhancements it retains the same addicting tactical action found in the original titles! Close Combat – Last Stand Arnhem comes with expanded force pools, reserve & static battlegroups, a troop point buying system, ferry and assault crossings, destructible bridges, static forces and much more! Also included in this rebuild are 60+ battles, operations and campaigns including a new enhanced Grand Campaign!
Post Reply
zon
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:46 pm

Boxed in at Arnhem bridge

Post by zon »

Here's a good visual argument for larger deploy areas for forces entering a map...

Image
Attachments
slaughter.jpg
slaughter.jpg (340.59 KiB) Viewed 168 times
zon
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:46 pm

RE: Boxed in at Arnhem bridge

Post by zon »

overview...

Image
Attachments
deploy.jpg
deploy.jpg (106.85 KiB) Viewed 170 times
User avatar
RD Oddball
Posts: 4836
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:38 pm

RE: Boxed in at Arnhem bridge

Post by RD Oddball »

I'll pass the suggestion along Zon. Thanks!
Peterk1
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 3:13 am

RE: Boxed in at Arnhem bridge

Post by Peterk1 »

Yeah but why didn't the Germans expand their zone by moving their guys through the building to the North? That set-up area looks pretty viable to me. The problem for the AI (I assume it's the AI that got massacred?) is that it sees the victory location in Southeast corner as being closer so it goes there. Put a VC at the south end of the brown building and the problem disappears?
xe5
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 5:06 pm

RE: Boxed in at Arnhem bridge

Post by xe5 »

Or rotate the VLs so that the 'to Westervoort' VL moves to where 'to Velp' was, the 'to Velp' VL moves to the top right map corner, and the 'to North Arnhem' VL moves to the west side of the bridge road. The revised 'to Westervoort' VL location is one deployment tile column to the left of where 'to Velp' is now, making the new 'to Westervoort' deployment area almost reach the bldg circled in red.

Image
Attachments
rotateVLs2.jpg
rotateVLs2.jpg (214.18 KiB) Viewed 168 times
User avatar
RD Oddball
Posts: 4836
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:38 pm

RE: Boxed in at Arnhem bridge

Post by RD Oddball »

Yeah you could compensate by changing the maps but that seems somewhat limiting to me. Then all your maps have to have little pockets of protection which seems like a homogenous way of approaching it. Not to mention that removes a part of what makes CC interesting. i.e. when a human opponent chooses to enter a map with bad deploy in hopes of gaining a larger strategic advantage. The risk factor.

If the AI could be made to consider the protection available when making moves on the strat map that would be ideal but that sounds like an impossibility to me. Then again, I'm not a programmer so I don't know. Perhaps VL's could have a "protection" value associated with them but then that's a judgement call by a person. Another point for all to disagree upon. Not sure there's an easy answer that would satisfy all.

Some good suggestions. Worth giving some thought for possible ways of enhancing the system. Keep firing the ideas off.
zon
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:46 pm

RE: Boxed in at Arnhem bridge

Post by zon »

The Arnhem bridge massacre above is really just a good illustration of the sort of problems such a narrow deploy presents at times, the realism issue aside. It's just too tough to break out of the box in many cases, especially when friendly terrain and buildings are lacking and the attacking force is the AI. A well-placed MG and a mortar barrage can beat up a force pretty bad, pretty quick. With all those targets packed together, you can't miss. I may be missing something integral to the map entry system, but I don't see any reason the deploy areas can't be widened, even if there is an infringement on a neutral VL.
Peterk1
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 3:13 am

RE: Boxed in at Arnhem bridge

Post by Peterk1 »

But in your specific example, if the set-up is made bigger won't it infringe on your control of Southeast Corner. I seriously would not be happy about losing the corner of that building without a fight.
User avatar
RD Oddball
Posts: 4836
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:38 pm

RE: Boxed in at Arnhem bridge

Post by RD Oddball »

Peterk1 you're right. That's one reason why the deploy is as it is. The VL is preventing the oncoming BG from owning that VL or putting it in no mans land. Wouldn't make much sense if the British didn't control that VL by the bridge but I can also see the point Zon is making. Some good stuff to think about.
zon
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:46 pm

RE: Boxed in at Arnhem bridge

Post by zon »

No, I would not want to give up the key bridge buildings to an entering BG. What I was thinking is that BGs would not penetrate far at all on entry, but would have more of shallow and wide starting point along the map edge (probably more realistic).
Rift
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:21 am

RE: Boxed in at Arnhem bridge

Post by Rift »

Hi guys I think the Assault on Mook by KG Goebel is a key example of a deployment zone that will lead to a massacre.

This would be impossible in a HvH IMO



Image
Attachments
Bitchofa..ckpoint.jpg
Bitchofa..ckpoint.jpg (367.53 KiB) Viewed 168 times
User avatar
RD Oddball
Posts: 4836
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:38 pm

RE: Boxed in at Arnhem bridge

Post by RD Oddball »

ORIGINAL: zon

No, I would not want to give up the key bridge buildings to an entering BG. What I was thinking is that BGs would not penetrate far at all on entry, but would have more of shallow and wide starting point along the map edge (probably more realistic).

Ah okay. Cool idea. Sort of a front type thing. Would be a nice enhancement. Will suggest it to Steve. Thanks Zon.
User avatar
RD Oddball
Posts: 4836
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:38 pm

RE: Boxed in at Arnhem bridge

Post by RD Oddball »

ORIGINAL: Rift

Hi guys I think the Assault on Mook by KG Goebel is a key example of a deployment zone that will lead to a massacre.

This would be impossible in a HvH IMO

Yeah that's one instance which neither a wide nor deep deploy zone would make a bit of difference. I'm pretty sure it'd be a bad idea to have deploy zones tailored to each VL. Hard coding as little as possible is preferred for obvious reasons.

Tejszd
Posts: 3466
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:32 pm

RE: Boxed in at Arnhem bridge

Post by Tejszd »

Changing the VL's will improve how the AI moves, but it should have used the blue building to begin with for a lot of troops to start with good cover/protection. Then these units could provide covering fire for advancing....
User avatar
RD Oddball
Posts: 4836
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:38 pm

RE: Boxed in at Arnhem bridge

Post by RD Oddball »

Agreed. That's some pretty good cover with a nice covered route up the east side of the map. I'm wondering how a more aggressive AI will effect this facet of things? Even less likely to make use of available cover? Pros and cons to every decision.
zon
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:46 pm

RE: Boxed in at Arnhem bridge

Post by zon »

ORIGINAL: Tejszd

Changing the VL's will improve how the AI moves, but it should have used the blue building to begin with for a lot of troops to start with good cover/protection. Then these units could provide covering fire for advancing....

And good use of smoke would help, but come to think of it I don't think I have ever seen AI use smoke, except for vehicles under fire.
Post Reply

Return to “Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem”