Maps with VLs unhidden

[zon]

Visible VLs for a public release of CC is a no-brainer. You might be able to use landmark text to let players know where VLs are, but players need to know when they switch hands and in whose hands they remain. In the heat of battle, you can lose track of VL control without visible flags. This game is not a military trainer and invisible VLs should have been fixed before release. Also, CC purists would probably prefer to have back the dark deployment blocks declaring the enemy setup zone; intel on the enemy-held area is not unrealistic.

Why didn't Matrix/Simtek/whoever not excise the square map requirement. This is a huge impediment to converting older maps (no, I don't want to a mod a black box around a rectangular map to make it work). Why is this there? Smaller maps, btw, are a must for this game if you want to encourage 1 vs 1 player, 2 vs 2, human version AI, cause by the looks of the BHQ lobby no one is playing the game online at the moment, and 10-player games will be rare.

How about a quick patch to fix the above????

This version of CC seems to be a relatively bug-free (EDIT: some bugs actually), smooth engine, and has the potential to be modded heavily. But it's a little rough around the edges.

[Andrew Williams]

see map posted above zon

[Andrew Williams]

intel on the enemy-held area is not unrealistic.

It's only a 1 square KM map zon... the enemy is only at your finger tips, you know where he is.


PS: Did you get my mail?

[zon]

The map looks great, but we need to convert myriad maps available from other versions. We also still need visible VLs.
 
No mail.

[Daviald]

A couple of points to address:

I agree that Better Op Orders would be appreciated to guide the gameplay along I hope all the mod makers out there will take this into account.  Even adding the commander's intent under Execution would aid the gaming experience and allow the players to become more involved.  A more through Execution would also be fun.  See if a player can stick to a plan or know when to deviate from it and begin to follow merely the commander's intent.
http://www.uga.edu/semperfi/documents/Fiveparagraph.ppt
(A short brief on a 5 Para order.  Ignore the bulletins talking about SULE II.  SULE II is a fun little event at OCS for Marine Corps Candidates.)

I have not had a problem locating VL's because I simply go where the enemy was or is and I usually end up fighting over the objectives anyways.  If the Player cannot know where the VL's are though, Why have the AI know.  I have checked a couple of times and they will follow the VL's like a trail of bread crumbs.  Instead of simply seeking to destroy me, As I am left to do with him, he is concerned with terrain control for Victory point purposes, not tactical value.  It would be fun to fight an AI foe, that sought to simply destroy me as I am forced to do to him, instead of having to hunt one down that is only interested in a land run.

Does the game not take into consideration the cost of the battle?  If a player losses 8 AFV's taking a VL and the defender only losses 1 AT team, I would not consider that a win, but will the game register it as such?

I just spent 10 minutes watching the AI Parade 4 AFV's and a whole slew of Infantry in circles on the other side of a bridge before I exited the game.  The AI needs to be tweaked especially with the vehicles.  Nothing as frustrating as a unit inform you that it is facing the wrong way to fire, but it won't turn around.  I just have no sympathy for the crew of that AFV when it gets blown up.

Allowing multiple AI opponents would be interesting.  Is there a way to do this?  A fight with 5 CPU's vs 1 human and 1 CPU would make for some interesting scenario's.

[jomni]

Sadly Victory is measured through teritorry. This is based on CC5 and territory is key because it also affects the overall campaign map. Never mind the casualties because you can get units from the unit pool anyway.

Even if the enemy surrenders because of low morale (due to cansualties), all his victory locations become neutral (not handed over to the victor). If you don't have at least one VL under control, the battle is lost.

[ogre]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

The marines saw viewable VL's as an unrealistic modelling of a way to depict an objective.

If this is the case, then the hidden VLs better properly "reflect" and reward a team commander who executes the proper tactics to achieve the scenario's stated objectives. In my experience, the hidden VLs fail in this regard.

What's worse than a player chasing visible objectives in a quest to achieve victory? A player who chases and successfully conquers true objectives only to be declared defeated because his teams failed to occupy the specific locations measuring success.

I understand the Marines logic for not displaying VL locations in training. Our real enemies don't paint big VL signs next to their objectives. On the flip side, I pray our real Marines are not evaluated based on the same VL scoring we gamers are subject to at the end of our games. I would hope the real Marines have some rock solid objective verbal feedback on their performance. The VLs are meaningless in this context. The seasoned feedback is where the soldier is made.

As for us, we don't get that kind of feedback. All we get are the VLs. So either the VL system needs to be improved so it properly reflects good performance....OR.....we need to see those VLs.

[zon]

VLs represent territory, something that wars since whenever have been fought over - along with the spoils that come with it. The Russians in WWII could have beaten the Nazis all to hell but if they stayed in Moscow instead of marching to Berlin, then there wouldn't be much of a victory there. Victory is measured in CC by territory and therefore VLs. The VL is a gaming device to enforce a real-world situation: taking an objective. In online play, traditionally, you play for VLs, usually a majority (2 our 3 for example). If you can't muster the forces to take that the VLs, you lose - no matter what the game results say. (Force morale was coded into the game in CCIV to take into account staggering losses and unwise use of your men, introducing a more realistic element to VL hunting) All CCs to date have had visible VLs, and this version is unfortunately hobbled with invisible VLs, among other things.
 
 

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: zon

Visible VLs for a public release of CC is a no-brainer. You might be able to use landmark text to let players know where VLs are, but players need to know when they switch hands and in whose hands they remain. In the heat of battle, you can lose track of VL control without visible flags.

Because, it's totally realistic, when an icon tells the player when unseen enemy soldiers move over a victory location[8|].

[zon]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: zon

Visible VLs for a public release of CC is a no-brainer. You might be able to use landmark text to let players know where VLs are, but players need to know when they switch hands and in whose hands they remain. In the heat of battle, you can lose track of VL control without visible flags.

Because, it's totally realistic, when an icon tells the player when unseen enemy soldiers move over a victory location[8|].

Any more unrealistic than clicking around a battlefield and moving vehicles and men about like some god? It's a game, and as such needs some gaming mechanisms. The VLs also happen to be there, and winning or losing is based on them... so let's see the Vls already.

I played a game last night at Battle HQ and the the scenario instructions said 'take the town.' My opponent rained down this game's destructive indirect fire on my approaching troops and I could not take the town. Yet, at game end, it turns out most of the VLs were in my territory, so according to the game I won. Another reason to see those little flags.

[Perturabo]

Any more unrealistic than clicking around a battlefield and moving vehicles and men about like some god? It's a game, and as such needs some gaming mechanisms. The VLs also happen to be there, and winning or losing is based on them... so let's see the Vls already.

I played a game last night at Battle HQ and the the scenario instructions said 'take the town.' My opponent rained down this game's destructive indirect fire on my approaching troops and I could not take the town. Yet, at game end, it turns out most of the VLs were in my territory, so according to the game I won. Another reason to see those little flags.

There's a difference between knowing where the VL is (landmark lable over VL) and automagically knowing that the enemy has troops over VL (VL icon). The difference is that players can abuse indirect fire and fire support to kill troops that have taken the victory location about which take over they shouldn't have known in first place unless they can see those enemy units.

[mooxe]

So now I lay direct fire over a land mark label. Whats the difference? Its strange we even have to have this conversation on being able to see VLs. The only a way a system like this (hidden VLs) will ever be fair is if two or more players on both teams play the map for the 1st time, sort of like a blind date between two teams. The Op order has to be very specific on the objectives to. Once they play one battle in a specific scenario, they will know where the VLs are and the point of them being hidden becomes useless.

Just laying down fire on VL is not an effective strategy. Whoever is firing exposes thier unit, they usually load HE for it, which makes the 1st shot from an enemy tank AP vs his opponents already loaded HE. The reload times are predictable so you can go sneak forward as much as you can and sneak back.

Hidden VLs must go, or be an option. land mark labels are only a bandaid.

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

There's a difference between knowing where the VL is (landmark lable over VL) and automagically knowing that the enemy has troops over VL (VL icon). The difference is that players can abuse indirect fire and fire support to kill troops that have taken the victory location about which take over they shouldn't have known in first place unless they can see those enemy units.

[zon]

Perturabo, I do see your point about intel on captured flags that your troops can't observe. If Matrix would code the game so VLs remain static throughout, that might work just fine -- as long as you can see 'em. Such a system would certainly encourage players to hang onto their troops so you can keep the VLs covered. I come to this from the stantpoint of someone who plays CC2 a lot online against hardcore and tough players. Here, VLs are fought over like dogs on a bone, and seeing VLs switch - while not necessarily realistic - is part of a gaming experience that is a hell of a lot of fun. You take the VLs or you lose - no arguments, no points assigned by the computer. I won't mind if that formula is continued.
 
I'm a little surprised by the debate, too, Mooxe. It also may be for nought, cause I haven't seen any strong clues that Matrix is ever going to patch this game; it seems to be put out as a bargain-bin offering.

[Andrew Williams]

Check post 24

tm.asp?m=1617254

[zon]

That's good news. Thanks for the heads-up. I spoke too soon. Why don't you guys set up a post just for the patch, throw out what might be changed?

[Grumbling Grogn]

I think the USMC were right...'if' the scenario designer has a decent write up that explains your mission objectives for the game.  Unfortunately in real life with games like this that is rarely (i.e. NEVER!) the case.  Need to have them displayed IMHO.
 
GG