Attack deployment areas too small (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Close Combat: Wacht am Rhein



Message

nietsche -> Attack deployment areas too small (11/25/2008 10:54:24 AM)

I know that attacking is supposed to be hard and that defending is easier ... however the current tiny deployment areas for attackers results in too many "turkey shoots" where a single artillery strike, mortars and a deployment of tanks/guns can wipe out the attackers in a couple of minutes. This is made worse by the likelihood of vehicles losing tracks if they start in wooded areas.

The Defender only needs to defend roads and a little bit of attention to infantry through the woods.

Broader attack areas would help overcome this problem and not significantly cause trouble with the defense "advantage" that you should have.

It all results in a significant loss of realism.



crushingleeek -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (11/25/2008 3:35:21 PM)

I hear you. I'm still early in the grand campaign for US, trying to tweak everything now so i don't end up on day 25 with a totally unrealistic result.
Some tweaks were to adjust the victory locations:
1) put them in places you think would be advantageous for the attacker to spread out too. They'll go for those places. put them in places where you think a good flanking attack might occur.
2) keep them away from the edges of the map. AI doesn't like traveling across the map to an edge on the other side. So move the VL's closer to the center of the map, which also makes defending them harder. The closer the VL is to where the AI units are, the more likely they'll be aggressive in taking this next VL.
3) if you also limit the # of VLs (although some argue for more VL's), it's that much harder to hang on to them. For example, in south eiffel, i moved the exit VL's to schonberg and losheim closer to the crossroads. I pushed the "to andler" VL, to the forest just west of the crossroads. Now defending is a little more aggressive towards the crossroads, and if they catch all the VLs, youre going to get disbanded.

There is also a way to adjust how dense the the AI forces start off in a map by adjusting the map .txt file in the maps folder. The 6th row of text tells you how dense the AI should be. 0=spread out. 1 = mixed. 2 = dense. I don't know which maps you are playing, but all the early ones in the grand campaign are already spread out, that doesn't help me.




Platoon_Michael -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (5/17/2009 1:45:22 PM)

Hello,
While playing the "Counter Offensive" campaign I was surprised to see how much the deployment changed after moving one BG off the map Hotton and then moving another BG into Hotton.
On the map preview screen it still shows the original deployment the Germans had from the last battle but when you start the game it has a totally different perspective.
One would think that since I left Hotton That Gerry would have a better position on the map,but he doesnt as shown below.

Edit: Now I know this is how it ends up being when moving BG's on/off maps around enemy BG's, even in CCIV 4.02
One map that always comes to mind from CCIV 4.02 was Esch -Sur-Sure. Many times on that map the deployment left you with each other facing off right in front of each other.And usually it was down on the Southern end by the Tower and on the huge hill.
I just dont understand why the game works that way thats all.
Also seen this on the map Chenogne,I just didnt take any screen shots.On the map Chenogne the German deployment was a small rectangle down the center and in the middle of the map.

Deployment as seen from last battle and seen through the map preview screen.

[image]local://upfiles/8753/BEACAD7C9FDC4352A5BE0C7F697FE3DD.jpg[/image]



Platoon_Michael -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (5/17/2009 1:46:30 PM)

And now the actual deployment.Only seen after going to the deployment phase on the map and before hitting Begin.
This kind of information can leave the player with very ill advice when placing support.
Knowing this Allied BG was very weak against the German BG I gave it 2 support options.
But I did not expect to see this type of grounds to fight on.


[image]local://upfiles/8753/0D0ED6A7B00E491FB5F0FC398326AA72.jpg[/image]



Platoon_Michael -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (5/17/2009 2:10:13 PM)

All it took was one Artillery Barrage to win the map,my guys never fired a shot.


[image]local://upfiles/8753/1B19D664444E4DA096A3D4175D96EE12.jpg[/image]



Nomada_Firefox -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (5/17/2009 3:40:26 PM)

Yes, the deployment zone is small, it is a fact but you have put all your men on the same site, you have not made a good deployment and artillery has destroyed your men.[;)]



Tejszd -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (5/17/2009 5:20:15 PM)

nietsche;

Do you have some specific maps and entry Vl's that are a problem? WAR provided larger deployment areas and maps compared to CC4....


Platoon_Michael;

The new Allied BG's deployment zone along with the neutral ground around it covers all the German held AI territory leaving no deployment area. Jumping to a small corner is not the best way to handle the situation.

What should happen when there is no deployment zone left?



Platoon_Michael -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (5/17/2009 7:02:47 PM)

1st
@ Firefox:
Sorry your statement doesnt make sense to me,I did not choose my deployment.It was givin to me.
I am fighting as the Allies,so I was the one who dropped the Artillery Barrage.
I do not think the A.I. would have that kind of abillity to understand that if I was playing as the Germans to drop the Barrage right off the bat knowing that in such a small area it would have Devistating effects.

2nd
@ Tejszd
Took me a few time of reading your post to understand what you were saying.
You said......
The new Allied BG's deployment zone along with the neutral ground around it covers all the German held AI territory leaving no deployment area. Jumping to a small corner is not the best way to handle the situation.
What should happen when there is no deployment zone left?

Hmmm
I see a very
debatable answer to that one.
But one would think that in war if your enemy  leaves a map (or area) and then moves another BG onto that said map that the Germans would then indeed own that map untill it was fought and won again.It only makes sense that if in war you had no oppnent to fight you would move about and find better cover to fight from.

Whats the right answer I do not know,but I do know that the area left for the Germans to defend is not the right one.

As for your first question which was:........
Do you have some specific maps and entry Vl's that are a problem? WAR provided larger deployment areas and maps compared to CC4
 
I do not feel that that question applies to the situation the result posted is what happens when one Allied BG leaves a map and another enters and I think after further review you understand.
 
 
 
 

Not only is the German deployment wrong (inmho) but the lack of info on the map preview of the strategic screen is wrong.
Wouldnt you agree?
Why wouldnt it show the "New" deployment instead of the "Old" deployment?

Again I know this is how the game has dictated this from playing many GC's in CCIV 4.02 and is probably not something new in terms of how many people have seen it over and over again,it's just the way the game has always handeld it.
needless to say I think many would agree that the German deployment is not only "Wrong" but would leave many a player playing as the Germans well ahh kinda pissed.


dont ya think?




Tejszd -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (5/17/2009 7:12:11 PM)

quote:

As for your first question which was:........
Do you have some specific maps and entry Vl's that are a problem? WAR provided larger deployment areas and maps compared to CC4

I do not feel that that question applies to the situation the result posted is what happens when one Allied BG leaves a map and another enters and I think after further review you understand.


The 1st question above was for nietsche.


For the deployment zone discussion: I do agree with you that the current deployment area is just wrong. It would make sense that the Germans would have expanded their territory as the other US BG was ordered to withdraw but I do not know if I would give the Germans the whole map....



Platoon_Michael -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (5/17/2009 7:17:18 PM)

The Allied BG wasnt ordered to withdraw it was ordered to relocate to another map.
While I wasnt able to dislodge the German BG (with the original BG that just left) I was able to hold them to that same area 2 times over.
In this case it was moved to another map for the sole purpose of cutting off the enemys supply.
I then moved the current BG into place with the sole objective to see if I could then bypass thet German BG just to see what would happen to it.
I wasnt going to fight it as that only leaves it a better chance of comming back somewhere else.
I just wanted to see what would happen if I just left it with No Ammo and No Fuel.
it didnt happen because the Artillery destroyed it but that was the goal.
Just to see what a surrounded BG would/could do.

sorry I missunderstood the 1st question wasnt for me.I just dug up this topic rather than starting a new one.



Platoon_Michael -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (5/17/2009 7:38:12 PM)

In all the years of playing the game and trolling the forums I dont understand why this topic never comes up with CC and if it has it doesnt get much attention,but I know I have seen it many times over.And some of you die hards have seen it too.
I only referenced the CCIV 4.02 to say that it has been there before.
Most people seem to concentrate on how effective Mortars are,how much the Armor thickness is of a tank, the historical accuracy of the game and etc etc etc and basically stuff that can be pretty much edited.
It's stuff like this that cant be edited I would like to see resolved or atleast like an explaination too.(among other things)







Andrew Williams -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (5/17/2009 9:50:10 PM)

I've been considering this and the answert o me is...

The German battle group should be given half the map VL's that the Aliied BG has abandoned.

This would simulate following up on the retreating/moving enemy.


Giving the entire map to the Germans would be too generous as they had been obviously struggling previously.


Now... how to do this with the code is the question.



Platoon_Michael -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (5/17/2009 9:57:04 PM)

Thank-You Andrew for responding.
First off I do appologise for editing my posts many times over.Just my inability of explaining myself.
I do agree that giving the whole map to Gerry would be wrong.As he wasnt able to take charge of said map in 2 attempts.
What to do with the code I have no idea,but I hope it's something that can be worked out and I hope that if possible it would have different results based on the previous battles.

















Platoon_Michael -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (5/17/2009 10:19:13 PM)

Im not trying to kick a dead horse here but to further the point is that more often than not the BG that gets bypassed doesnt even get the VL that they entered from.
In both cases the deployment for the Germans just doesnt make sense.
Below is how the deployment was on the map Chenogne,unfortuantly Gerry did much better than I thought he would and captured more of the map than what I expected but the red outline was his inital deployment before the battle.

[image]local://upfiles/8753/7E5B8501D1D94284966A47D12BC74011.jpg[/image]



Platoon_Michael -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (9/6/2009 1:18:24 PM)

It's very easy to duplicate this.

Anytime you can leave a map that the enemy hasnt been able to yet secure enough ground.
Just move your original BG off that map and replace it with another BG.
Just be sure to enter from the same entry VL that your opponent entered from.
It usually has some devistating effects on his "Next" deployment for that map.

By moving the 295/18 VG off Beho and having Peiper enter from the same entry VL as the AI did made one heck of a mess for the AI deployment.

Picture of what the deployment was with the 295/18 VG

[image]local://upfiles/8753/3EA3A5D66B2948C99E4D95804DC8CF0F.jpg[/image]



Platoon_Michael -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (9/6/2009 1:21:34 PM)

And what happens when Peiper enters the map from the North.
You just dont see this depiction of the map untill you start the Battle.
The game shows the last ground that was owned.

[image]local://upfiles/8753/404952DBB53643D3B999D53B373E09E8.jpg[/image]



Andrew Williams -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (9/6/2009 11:32:05 PM)

I believe this 10 year old annoyance has been addressed in the patch we now have in testing.



Andrew Williams -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (9/7/2009 2:19:55 AM)

You can see we are getting pretty low down the bug/annoyance list now, hopefully what will be left is just a matter or personal preference and we can move on to adding more features for any future releases.





Platoon_Michael -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (9/7/2009 12:15:01 PM)

Thats good news.
I too see that not many people are not posting any bugs or issues which is great.

Personally I can't wait to see the next patch,it sure seems like a long time comming.
After hating the strat map the first few months I've kind of grown fond of it now.
Playing as the Germans really re-creates the MESS it was in the North trying to get ones BG's out.

I would like to know if it's possible to get some of the Tanks/Vehicles repainted to match the proper Icon?
Both the Stug and the Panther first come to mind.The Icon looks like a Heer (Im geussing Heer,with just the plain Gray Icon) while the actual Tank/Vehicle graphics are still the Camo look.



Platoon_Michael -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (10/19/2011 7:57:11 PM)

Assuming there is no intentions of fixing this is it at least possible to have the map preview from the Strategic Screen properly depic the current/actual deployment?



RD_Oddball -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (10/20/2011 4:40:46 PM)

The map preview display mechanism was updated for all versions. If you've got the most recent update applied the map preview should be reflecting the current deployment. If not I'll enter a bug for it and it'll get fixed at the first opportunity, as is always the case.



Platoon_Michael -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (12/19/2011 4:41:20 PM)

Finally got around to testing this out.
It looks as if the deployment issue may have been corrected.
The map preview on the other hand still depicts the last Battles deployment on the strategic screen and not what is actually going to be the new deployment.
It does depict the correct deployment while on the Bttlegroup screen but that info is unfortunately not available until after one has committed their strategic moves.
I do have the most recent update.



Steve McClaire -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (12/19/2011 6:30:34 PM)

Hi Platoon Michael,

I'm not sure what you're expecting to see. If you are looking at the deployment state for a map before you execute strategic moves, it can really only show you the state at the end of last turn (i.e. the previous battle).

If there was no previous battle on this map (new game, or the map wasn't contested last turn) there's no way to predict for certain what the map is going to look like when it comes to the battle resolution portion of the strategic turn.

Thanks,

Steve



Platoon_Michael -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (12/28/2011 6:39:33 AM)

The 8th/3rd FJ just left Losheim and moved to Bullingen,bypassing the Allied 14th Calvary Group.
Peiper moves from North Eifel into Losheim.

[image]local://upfiles/8753/095B0E676B134813954A28E4ADA78096.jpg[/image]



Platoon_Michael -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (12/28/2011 6:41:08 AM)

This is how the strategic map shows what supposed to be your current holding of the map.

[image]local://upfiles/8753/F7A38D47172F46529E115806130416B3.jpg[/image]



Platoon_Michael -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (12/28/2011 6:43:57 AM)

But that's from what the last Battle actually ended up being.
This is Peipers actual placement on Losheim.
Looks like the Allies do get pretty poor positioning after one BG leaves a map then another enters.
You can see all the VL's I held from the previous Battle because they are half Axis,half Allies.
Kinda two points here,sorry.

[image]local://upfiles/8753/385323A5A32D40D08AABA86F6CFBB5CE.jpg[/image]



Steve McClaire -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (12/28/2011 5:40:06 PM)

Thanks for the screenshots.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Platoon_Michael
This is how the strategic map shows what supposed to be your current holding of the map...


At what point during the strategic turn did you create this screenshot? Before or after you hit Execute to resolve moves?

quote:

This is Peipers actual placement on Losheim...


This is correct, given the previous screenshot and the BG entry. When one German BG moves out and another moves in the previous map and VL control becomes neutral. This includes a buffer area around every VL, which is what is making a fair bit of Allied territory switch to neutral. And then KG Peiper's entry zone cuts even further into the remaining Allied controlled area, leaving them without a lot of ground. I'll consider reducing the size of the buffer around the VLs in this case, but otherwise it is working as intended. You've got a US BG that has basically been overrun and cut in half in the previous battle(s), and then it is hit from a different direction in the second.

Steve



Platoon_Michael -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (1/6/2012 10:51:00 AM)

At what point during the strategic turn did you create this screenshot? Before or after you hit Execute to resolve moves?
Doesnt matter,Game still displays the last Battles control of the map.


This is correct, given the previous screenshot and the BG entry. When one German BG moves out and another moves in the previous map and VL control becomes neutral. This includes a buffer area around every VL, which is what is making a fair bit of Allied territory switch to neutral. And then KG Peiper's entry zone cuts even further into the remaining Allied controlled area, leaving them without a lot of ground. I'll consider reducing the size of the buffer around the VLs in this case, but otherwise it is working as intended. You've got a US BG that has basically been overrun and cut in half in the previous battle(s), and then it is hit from a different direction in the second.

Steve.

I understood that,reducing the buffer zone would be an added plus.
But if you look at my previous posts where I have done the same except entered the map from the same location as the enemy did you'll see that their deployment becomes very much out of whack.My earlier post on what happened at Hotton is the best example of how bad the game decides whats given to an opponet.
In the original CCIV there was an 8am Battle and a 4pm Battle,WAR just says Turn 1 Turn 2.
I would like to believe that the time still applies thus one would imagine that in the hours after the first battle and before the second Battle the enemy would collect their dead and reposition.
Here it appears the moves are instantly.Thus leaving the enemy no time to regroup.





heckler -> RE: Attack deployment areas too small (1/30/2012 7:00:13 PM)

I'm not certain if I'm responding to the spirit of the conversation 9I hope so!) but I have enjoyed the 'strategic layer' that comes into play with hitting my opponent from different maps on consecutive turns. I imagine the coordination is there for the one group to not move out much before the follow-on attack...and I like the poor deployment as reward/punishment.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.21875