View Full Version : Command and Control - on or off?
Bullet Magnet
12 Dec 03, 18:30
Greetings, folks!
I have noticed that very few games are played with command and control on.
Why is this? Do people find it too limiting?
Surely, though, that is the point - Op. Barbarossa, the Russians had some fine tanks and some very fine guns, but the Germans ran rings round them, as radios in tanks -v- commander sticking head out waving flags is usually more effective!
Thoughts, please!
Cheers,
And Merry Christmas!
Bullet Magnet
I remember, when I played SPWAW, I only played with CC off, except one or two times. The problem was that the two sides had to play with it when it was on. But concerning your example, if the Russian should have the CC on, it is not the case for the Germans.
LaPalice.
Double Deuce
15 Dec 03, 18:53
I think most people play with C & C Off because it allows more freedom and maybe even's the playing field when playing nations who are at a disadvantage when it is on.
Probably why most want to be Germans. Rarely do you find players who want to use forces from any nation other than the "major" powers (US, USSR, and Germany).
Bullet Magnet
15 Dec 03, 19:43
Probably why most want to be Germans. Rarely do you find players who want to use forces from any nation other than the "major" powers (US, USSR, and Germany).
Roger that!
In e.mail games I have played, (not, I hasten to add, with anyone who is a member here) the challenge is normally - "Lets do N.W. Europe 1944-5, and I'll be German!"
I here that, I know I shall be facing tigers, king tigers, panthers, and even, uniquely (!) elefants - supported, of course, by Waffen SS infantry.
When I hear this, I normally, where I can, buy 6-8 typhoons (about 250 points) and some scout patrol to tank spot, then let the typhoons rip.
Normally, by turn 6 or so, when lots of german tanks are burning across the map, it tends to go very quiet.
I do think that being allowed to turn command and control off does affect play, and allows the player to play the omniscient super general.
I also, being controversial, think the historical availability should be goosed up, to prevent row upon row of shiny tigers - maybe you should be able to only buy tank platoons or companies, and the game decides exactly which tanks you get, based on historical availability - say buy a company of german tanks, and it is a coin toss as to whether you get PIV's or tigers?
In my hunble opinion, of course!!!
Cheers,
BM
For all the time that this game has been out has anyone put together rule sets for multiplay the way Combat Mission has which detail what types of forces are "Fair?"
I am a total noob to this game so I am not aware what is out there for it...:rolleyes:
Michael
Double Deuce
15 Dec 03, 22:42
For all the time that this game has been out has anyone put together rule sets for multiplay the way Combat Mission has which detail what types of forces are "Fair?"
Good question and to my knowledge it has never been done. I think most peole just agree among themselves and because of the large # of nations and units it may take a big effort to document some standards.
I've always played the game with C & C off because I do find C & C on to be as you put it limiting.
Bullet Magnet
16 Dec 03, 12:10
I've always played the game with C & C off because I do find C & C on to be as you put it limiting.
But isn't that the point?
Surely, as using a French Armoured division in late '39, you wouldn't expect to be able to zap tanks across the board to new trouble spots, and have them park exactly where you wanted them - certainly the French commanders didn't have that ability!
Doesn't playing with C+C off almost make this an 'arcade' version? - lacking the historical interest of understanding what the real commander s went through??
(Just trying to stimulate some conversation!!!!)
Your probibly right Bullet, perhaps I should put C & C on.
For what its worth I have been trying to learn how to play with it on. I figure even if you were able to signal your troops you don't always get immediately results, it seems to add an element of friction to the game, and requires some additional preplanning with the setting of objectives. I find that if I am careful about my Objective selection, I don't have too much trouble getting my troops to obey my commands.
Michael
Bullet Magnet
16 Dec 03, 16:09
Norad, I agree - and it adds to the fun.
With C+C on, you actually have to plan the forthcoming battle.
Where is my main assault (schwerpunkt) going to fall, what units will take part, what are the objectives, which units are going to hold ground, whilst others advance? Who is going to support who?
It also makes you fight a different (in my opinion, more realistic) way.
Now, you can defeat an opponent by disrupting him, suppressing his units, and break up his assault.
With C+C on, the 60mm mortars finally have a role - firing indirect, making the tanks button up, suppressing them so that they might just miss the change of objective, and end getting stranded, if you move the platoon command too far away from them.
I said earlier that C+C off is the arcade version of SPWAW - and I truly believe that.
With C+C on, you can't just perambulate your spiffy tanks across the board, you actually have to command!
Double Deuce
16 Dec 03, 18:51
Norad, I agree - and it adds to the fun.Is this a hint for our next match. C + C ON - I am game. But let me extract my cossacks from their current mess first.
Bullet Magnet
16 Dec 03, 19:05
lol
Don't worry about your cossacks - you can't see what my lot are up to, behind that smokescreen from your artillery!
Managed to drop an artillery barrage on my own tanks at one point - that's the problem with artillery that has a two-turn arrival lag!
1939, border dispute between Russia and Japan - Cossacks -v- japanese cavalry! Can anyone beat that for 'uniqueness'?
I think next time we should do the '39 Italian invasion of Greece. With C+C on, I doubt, knowing the two sides reported reputation for all things C+C at the time, either of us will manage to get any units over the start line!!!
First one whose tanks rust in the car park loses!
rofl
T. Heikkilä
17 Dec 03, 08:31
I play with C&C on. I first got SPWaW with a Finnish PC magazine, and they said that you should learn to play with C&C on, because if you dont, and later want to play with cc on, youll have to pretty much learn the game all over again. And i think that its more realistic with cc on, considering that the troops cant run all over the place in the battle, etc... But thats only my opinion...
Double Deuce
17 Dec 03, 12:58
I think next time we should do the '39 Italian invasion of Greece. With C+C on
That sounds like a plan as soon as our current one is done. Oh and I still owe you a turn. Guess I better get on it.
Use of Command & Control (C&C) should be a function of whether the battle is played in real time (on-line) or at the players' leisure (play-by-email; PBEM). I could go into my anecdotal experience that the better players I encounter prefer C&C ON, but then some of you will explain away my argument as being that of an *******.
For on-line play, C&C OFF makes perfect sense. Turns are generally 3 minutes per side, or 6 minutes for a full spwaw turn, as spwaw simulates. The ability to move a unit against its initial orders is a function of the time the Force Commander (player) has to select (contact) that unit and give it new directives. Therefore, C&C should be OFF so the player can change the plan as if they had issued a new order to that unit by radio.
With PBEM, a player has much more time to make moves. Thus, unless the player strictly limits themselves to 3 minutes (RIGHT!) to take their turn, C&C should be ON. Why? Because Command & Control (C&C) is inherent both to actual combat and the spwaw game at its basic level. Thus, playing with C&C ON in a PBEM battle is a more realistic simulation of combat.
How is C&C ON more like actual combat? Some players have argued that C&C ON is contrary to actual combat, "Units in the field can reverse direction should the conditions arise that call for it. Ability to adapt orders is well documented for the US and Germans..." Well, this is true and in many cases appropriate. However, such action could be interpreted by high command as a violation of orders and dereliction of duty. I'm sure more than one officer went to prison for having taken an obtuse path to his objective, or reversed direction at an inopportune moment.
A player in spwaw decides on every units actions, as if the decision were being made by the Force Commander at that moment. Is this realistic? I say yes ONLY for a force of a half-dozen platoons or less. Then there would be time (barely) in 6 minutes to contact all 6 platoon leaders and assign new directives as needed. Can you imagine having 6 minutes to contact 20 people by radio, listen to what they've observed, reformulate a plan, and give each of them explicit directions on what to do? It just isn't possible. Try playing on-line with that many platoons and see if you can move every unit in your command each turn. NOT!
Spwaw on its basic level accounts for C&C effects, even with C&C OFF, indicating C&C's importance. For regular units (non-recon), if a squad is "out of contact" with its platoon leader (or Company Commander, or HQ), it can't go against the direction of its objective flag or change stance if it didn't have an order to burn when it lost contact. This occurs with C&C OFF, so obviously the game was built on the concept of having sufficient communication channels and time to alter orders.
Additionally, playing with C&C ON increases the importance of recon units. This too is like reality. Recon is essential. Yet some players can win battles without purchasing a single recon unit when C&C is OFF. Having C&C ON either forces a player to purchase adequate recon to win, or pay the price of fighting with hindered intelligence.
Though at times I hate it...I play with it on.
BM, do you play COD?
Bullet Magnet
02 Jan 04, 13:38
Errrr,
Don't know, mate - what is COD?
Bullet Magnet
02 Jan 04, 13:40
155 views for this thread, but only 10 votes??
Come on, people!
Make a statement!!!!
Happy New Year to all!!!
LOL, you must not be him :)
I championed the use of C&C being used as the ultimate form of difficulty level, that is until I had it pointed out how C&C is not really up to the level of accuracy the game requires.
Can't quote specifics, I only know, the guys over at Matrix Games, the ones with the large magnifying glasses, were quite efficient at illustrating to me at the time, that C&C "on" does not actually fully deliver the proper effect we would like it to do.
I can play with it on, but I don't have the same attitude for it I once had.
Thus when I play solo, it is usually off.
Is there any sort of C&C affect with the function turned off? Do HQ units need to stay close to their subordinants, etc...?
The only thing turning C&C off accomplishes, is it allows you to tell everyone every turn to do something to the best of the usual ability.
C&C generally forces you to make sure all the units of a formation all remain in some manner of contact be it visual or distance related.
But there are spots where C&C stumbles, just don't have any direct examples.
I am aware, that C&C does an abyssmal job where bodies of water need to be crossed if memory serves me.
Bullet Magnet
07 Jan 04, 18:26
Buckaroo - thanks mate, I agree with large parts of what you wrote.
Les, I would fully accept that C+C in it's current form may not be quite up to the hal 9000 series standards, but surely any form of C+C is better than none at all?
I am all in favour in removing the 'omnipotent player/god as general' from the game, even for solo play.
Part of what attracts me to this game is that you do have to get into character, and think about how you are going to handle and co-ordinate your troops, depending on the nationality, time frame etc. It perphaps gives you a taste of the problems facing the real commanders!
My feeling is that platoons where often the smallest fighting unit (for this size of game), and that members of the same platoon would tend to stay close to each other, and fight together.
It is unlikely that one of the platoon sections would 'sense' that a neighbouring platoon, behind that wood, needed help, and that they should split off to help.
For such a thing to happen, unless they were in direct line of sight, a request to re-deploy troops that don't belong to that organisation unit directly, would have to go up some form of chain of command, and be communicated. This would take time - quicker by radio, slower by hanging out of your tank turret and waving semaphore flags!
It is just this slowing down of the players ability to move his forces 'at will' that I think C+C in it's current form does a reasonable job of emulating.
I am all for it! - and if those hero's at Matrix can improve it - then why not!
Double Deuce
02 Feb 04, 10:06
I think it is a good thing to have in the game though I do like the freewheeling play without it. If nothing more, it causes you to think harder and plan ahead.
Sheik Yerbouti
02 Feb 04, 10:59
I am all in favour in removing the 'omnipotent player/god as general' from the game, even for solo play.
Hear, hear! That's exactly why I voted 'yes'.
It's a realism issue.
C&C feels more real, but the downside to using it and feeling that you are giving yourself a stronger "challenge" is that the C&C portion of the program is "broken" in a few key areas where it is unable to handle certain functions.
I get that straight from the crowd that ensures all the other myriad details are sufficiently picked over for minutae to keep the simulation as "accurate" as possible.
If a human opponent requested its usage, I would be more than happy to comply, but only because they would be no less burdened than I was by the short comings of the C&C program.
I am basically willing to wait till Combat Leader is released, for a more complete C&C system.
I am not worried I might seem "omnipotent" during playing Steel Panthers currently. One only needs to play a Mega Campaign for the WaW version, to see how little it can matter if you "seem" omnipotent hehe.
In battle mode, the AI is so completely over matched by a human opponent, that nothing you do is going to give it a fair chance.
Scenarios are acceptable in my view though.
In head to head, human vs human battle mode, I find the same problem exists, as does with playing ASL DYO scenarios. No play balance due to no play testing. In short, a complete waste of time most of the time.
I totally stopped playing battle mode vs AI or vs human, when it was clear the game would do nothing to entertain me reliably.
VikingNo2
02 Mar 04, 15:26
C&C off is what I prefer, and people aren't *******s for liking it. Nor are players less skilled for not liking it either. Trust me you have to plan your battles with it off as well. If you don't then your will get you head handed back to you on a platter.
You are a player god in CC On as well as Off. The only way not to be a player/god is to not spot units unless the unit that does the spotting has a radio/visual link back to the HQ. My .02 $
I think in SPWAW the C&C part has alot of faults, and ruins the game for me.
However in SPMBT & SPWW2, it is a different story and it plays alot better, it combines the need to keep in contact with command structures as well as giving you the ability to cross attach platoons for added flexability. All up a good package.
I play with C&C off. Most of my SP playing is PBEM, and to be quite honest I never learned the game with C&C on, so I will one day have to invest some time and practice C&C on vs the AI.
Having said that, I have rarely (maybe once in 2 years) come across an opponent wanting to play with C&C on, so there's been little incentive for me to expend the effort to climb C&C's learning curve and "relearn" my tactics ...
Perhaps I'm just too lazy :o
I will also add that usually try to steer clear of C&C arguments because they can become quite heated at times. Since this discussion has remained so civil I felt it was safe to add my .02 ! :hush:
danstudentvcc
05 Apr 04, 12:48
It's good for a Soviet battle.
Rather than put everyone under two or three commands.
We would instead simply play with CC on.
Within the game that would reflect the historical flavour of large Soviet formations proceeding to target.
By increasing the number of order rich German units.
We would then be able to show the Germans requirement to not stand in the path of the Soviet herd.
But as well, while maneuvering and taking losses, the German player would experience a growing Inertia (inability to wheel and deal).
Hence although the Germans would kill-off in game terms hordes
of units of all types by cutting into Soviet thrusts.
They would as well over time lose effectiveness and cohesion.
Thus fire-brigades to close openings and the rise of abteilungs from divisional remnants.
either way
On or off it can be fun.
I prefer C&C OFF.
Perhaps in a year or two I might want to add that extra aspect to the game.
Kaz
For all the comments that say the Command Control function is broken or doesn't work properly, I have not seen any specific problem identified.
I prefer to play with C2 ON. It is restrictive and you have to plan ahead and IMO it makes the game more fun. C2 OFF is more arcade style of play. I use this for battles against the AI and, as Buckeroo mentioned in online play (although using ON in online play adds more pressure and leads to some new, more novel methods to play the game- like assigning some of your force to the AI)
I don't mind playing minor nations with C2 ON and have just started a PBEM with my Romanians pitted against a Soviet opponent. Turn 5 and no problems.
Bullet Magnet, or any other player who likes C2 ON, please send me a game proposal and we can play.
Nikolai Vatutin
11 May 04, 20:08
CC on is much more realistic and it suits players who like the realism of communications and logistics. After a few games practice I think most players will enjoy the extra challenge and battlefield understanding.
I think C/C is the most realistic feature in the game - it takes away a lot of the arcade-like aspects of the game. However, it is difficult to find players who are willing to give up the ability to dash back and forth and left and right instantly.
Some forces in the game are very difficult to play with C/C turned on.
After having some of the people (those guys, the ones that reeeeeeeally jump into the guts of the design) explain in a brutal fashion the glaring inadequacies of the C&C design, I stopped worrying if I used it or not.
But as it goes, most of their points revolved around some very specific situations.
I think for instance, it is poorly designed for river crossings.
Likely a half empty or half full argument.
I don't "hate" C&C, I just figure if it isn't perfect, then there is little point getting emotional :)
Every now and then I might play a battle with it.
It is probably only important in scenarios and human to human games where both have agreed in advance they won't cry foul if the C&C falls on it's face part way through the game.
Nikolai Vatutin
18 Jul 04, 11:07
There may be some deficiencies with CC on but not as many as with CC off. CC off completely takes ALL chain of command, communications, and artillery calling out of the game. With CC off EVERYBODY has a radio even if they don't. EVERYBODY has an all seeing eye that they can immediately react to. There is no need to buy a Whole Company when you can just buy a dozen of so platoons since there is no need for a chain of command. You don't even need to be in contact with your platoon leader, and those who have been in the military know that we look to our platoon leader for orders from higher up. Bravo 2-2 looks to Bravo 2-6 for orders.
How can one possibly recreate the Russian Front when all the Russians know as much as the Battalion Commander. There would not have been pockets cut off Russians if CC was off. Everyone should rethink their position on CC on if they want as much realism as possible. CC on even makes more of the players buy more historical because it is more efficient.
Don't worry Nik, you are preaching to a believer hehe :)
danstudentvcc
19 Jul 04, 12:35
A wargame with unit by unit fire and move is fun and interesting. A wargame with command and control is doubly so.
Even with CC off all players face a significant challange when faced with
rallying. The game's rally mechanics stem from leadership being in good order and able to comm with other units.
Recently in a game with Viking 2 I was faced with a dilemma. Either I could rally the troops right there on the frontlines after a particularly heavy mortar attack. Or, I could just rally the leadership and move them rearward in anticipation of the inevitable computer sponsored retreat.
No way! Having experienced other such computer controlled retreats that suddenly became turkey shoots; I decided right there and then. As the computer might partially rally units leaving them neither in good order nor in fighting trim; I thus went by the chain of command...
First was my AO unit. Then all leadership units with ' in contact ' clearly visible. Lastly, all remaining non-command units in contact folowed by those not in contact. The results were predictable .. despite numbers of 97 and 70 something all units that had in contact were rallied in the main, while those without only lessened their suppression.
In closing in a critical battle situation keeping contact within a formation can mean the difference between stand and fight vs run-away or the dreaded turkey-shoot.
LOGIC
A question for the experts:
How do you apply shoot and scoot with C&C on? This is a VERY important maneuver to keep your AFVs alive.
Artur.
To shoot and scoot, or to move forward, do something and then retreat without expending orders, is not difficult. It does, however require some forethought.
First, you need to plan this. It should not be something you do without thought or planning.
Therefore you need to place the unit in a good position, locate the objective flag properly and then make your move at the right moment.
I will attach a word document to illustrate the use of the shoot and scoot technique, although in this instance I am going to retreive a pinned gun, and move it to the rear behind my next line of defence. At this time my file is too large to attach. So here is part 1........
Parts 2 and 3 to follow.......
Thank you for the excellent explanation Major D.
I see that some 50% of the peolpe voted yes. Is C&C so popular?:crosseye: :cheeky: :cool:
Artur.
C&C is indeed popular, the real question is, how many of those that said yes, really use it, as opposed to merely supporting it, and how many that said no, actually don't use it because they merely think the design doesn't use it properly and consistently,
I for one am a believer that those that like C&C might be of the sort that want that maximum realism in spite of the opinions of others that can prove adequately it is not a fully accurate depiction of actual C&C.
And when you consider what is normally the case with a lot of people, that being to get in a snit for the slightest deviation from the ultimate in detail nitpicking, it is not surprising that they would also get in a snit over some of the performance of the C&C portion of the game.
Best rule of thumb, is if you have not been following the OOB debate for instance, don't have any real clue what the differences are between 7.1 and 8.2 and prefer your game with the best attempt at realism, dents and all, use C&C on.
Because, odds are you would enjoy it on, as opposed to off.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.