Is there a primer, tutorial, or "For Dummies" somewhere on playing with C&C on?
I tried a search of the Training section without luck.
C&C
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
-
junk2drive
- Posts: 12856
- Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 7:27 am
- Location: Arizona West Coast
C&C
Conflict of Heroes "Most games are like checkers or chess and some have dice and cards involved too. This game plays like checkers but you think like chess and the dice and cards can change everything in real time."
RE: C&C
junk2drive,
I am a veteran C&C ON player. I will be happy to answer all of your C&C ON questions. I learned the hard way by just playing lots of games with C&C ON starting way back in 1997 when SP-III was released. Fire away with your questions.
--Victor
I am a veteran C&C ON player. I will be happy to answer all of your C&C ON questions. I learned the hard way by just playing lots of games with C&C ON starting way back in 1997 when SP-III was released. Fire away with your questions.
--Victor
-
FlashfyreSP
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 9:39 am
- Location: Combat Information Center
- Contact:
RE: C&C
There's a section in the Manual that explains some of the aspects about C&C, but you really have to try a game (a small one, at first) to see it in action. The most common trouble players have is not planning their "mission" out and using the Orders and Objectives to achieve it.
Part of the problem also lies in the way the OOBs have been designed; too many formations have 6 or more units, and they ALL must be ordered by the Formation Leader unit. And he usually isn't in contact with all of them, or have enough Orders, to be able to command them effectively. A perfect example is the "motorized" formation, where the transport units are organic to the platoon; if those transports are a separate formation, they have their own Leader, and can be given a different Objective than the infantry formation riding in them. This would allow the transports to drive forward, unload, the infantry platoon to move towards ITS Objective, and the Transport Leader could redirect his transports to return to the rear, without ALSO changing the Objective of the Infantry formation.
But most players over the years have asked that the transports be included in the infantry formation, for easier purchasing. So the C&C aspect is more difficult because of this.
Part of the problem also lies in the way the OOBs have been designed; too many formations have 6 or more units, and they ALL must be ordered by the Formation Leader unit. And he usually isn't in contact with all of them, or have enough Orders, to be able to command them effectively. A perfect example is the "motorized" formation, where the transport units are organic to the platoon; if those transports are a separate formation, they have their own Leader, and can be given a different Objective than the infantry formation riding in them. This would allow the transports to drive forward, unload, the infantry platoon to move towards ITS Objective, and the Transport Leader could redirect his transports to return to the rear, without ALSO changing the Objective of the Infantry formation.
But most players over the years have asked that the transports be included in the infantry formation, for easier purchasing. So the C&C aspect is more difficult because of this.
-
junk2drive
- Posts: 12856
- Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 7:27 am
- Location: Arizona West Coast
RE: C&C
Thanks for the help guys.
KG, since the manual is from 5.0 and we are up to 8.4 I thought there might be some pitfalls.
I was hoping that someone made a guide but I think trial and error (frustration?) is the answer. Then ask questions.
KG, since the manual is from 5.0 and we are up to 8.4 I thought there might be some pitfalls.
I was hoping that someone made a guide but I think trial and error (frustration?) is the answer. Then ask questions.
Conflict of Heroes "Most games are like checkers or chess and some have dice and cards involved too. This game plays like checkers but you think like chess and the dice and cards can change everything in real time."
RE: C&C
junk2drive,
There will be much frustration at first. There is a learning curve. But C&C ON is a superior way to play. I've played lots with both C&C ON and C&C OFF. And having played lots both ways, I can say that even though the game is biased against C&C ON, it provides a more realistic and historical feel than C&C OFF. I'll be here when you have questions. Happy gaming.
--V
There will be much frustration at first. There is a learning curve. But C&C ON is a superior way to play. I've played lots with both C&C ON and C&C OFF. And having played lots both ways, I can say that even though the game is biased against C&C ON, it provides a more realistic and historical feel than C&C OFF. I'll be here when you have questions. Happy gaming.
--V
RE: C&C
I've got a question for ya VA,, in all your years playing this game how often do u do a battle where u give the AI control of some of your units?,I never have because I also don't believe the AI is capeable of running any unit to its proper working,and didn't want to place all those waypoints. just wanted to know if u've experimented that way?
RE: C&C
ORIGINAL: vahauser
junk2drive,
There will be much frustration at first. There is a learning curve. But C&C ON is a superior way to play. I've played lots with both C&C ON and C&C OFF. And having played lots both ways, I can say that even though the game is biased against C&C ON, it provides a more realistic and historical feel than C&C OFF. I'll be here when you have questions. Happy gaming.
--V
So, Victor, you use C&C during your campaigns? I do NOT use it. The vagaries of WWII-era radio communication are still built-in with C&C OFF. You can't call in arty on demand at a 100% rate -- this has caused me much grief. As the battalion commander with C&C off, you still have limited control over asset assignment.
Yes, I CAN maneuver units individually, but the command ranges for company/platoon commanders still apply. The whole idea is to keep units operating as discrete manuever elements with maintaining contact with their superior HQ, and keeping the chain of command intact is a policy I try to maintain.
This is a voluntary attempt to keep things historical. I've conditioned myself to play in this fashion.
This policy is NOT set in stone -- at times, I've had to form ad-hoc teams to reach victory hexes. Risks are taken, yes, but I don't go out of my way to take advantage of the game's quirks.
To put it another way, I'm not "gamey". I don't care what you say, Victor, being a "power gamer" is nothing more than taking advantage of the loopholes in the game code to win, no matter how ridiculous it is.
Whatever gets your rocks off is fine, I suppose. [8|]
RE: C&C
I didn't say that...
Goblin
Goblin
RE: C&C
Erwin,
My Group Andrews AARs were all done using C&C ON. Nothing gamey there. It is far easier to exploit the game using C&C OFF, I promise you.
Riun T,
Sometimes late in a campaign when all my units have experience 120 and above and I have 20,000 build points accumulated, I'll just turn control of my units over to the AI because I'm bored with the campaign. I haven't played any campaign that far though in a long time. Hopefully, now that Enhanced DV is finished I can actually play a campaign all the way to the end without a new version of the game being released.
My Group Andrews AARs were all done using C&C ON. Nothing gamey there. It is far easier to exploit the game using C&C OFF, I promise you.
Riun T,
Sometimes late in a campaign when all my units have experience 120 and above and I have 20,000 build points accumulated, I'll just turn control of my units over to the AI because I'm bored with the campaign. I haven't played any campaign that far though in a long time. Hopefully, now that Enhanced DV is finished I can actually play a campaign all the way to the end without a new version of the game being released.
-
h_h_lightcap
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:37 pm
- Location: Eureka, CA
RE: C&C
vahauser,
You cant have it both ways-----It seems more historical with C&C on ---yet you are a power gamer and like to take weird force mixes----
C and C seems like a good idea but it plays goofy---units that are being fired on cant make common sense retreats and it really hurts countries like Germany and Finland that let their Sarg's show initiative and make battlefield deciscions.
HH
You cant have it both ways-----It seems more historical with C&C on ---yet you are a power gamer and like to take weird force mixes----
C and C seems like a good idea but it plays goofy---units that are being fired on cant make common sense retreats and it really hurts countries like Germany and Finland that let their Sarg's show initiative and make battlefield deciscions.
HH
"My soul knows my meat is doing bad things, and is embarrassed. But my meat just keeps right on doing bad, dumb things." ----Kurt Vonnegut
RE: C&C
h_h_lightcap,
Speaking strictly as a power gamer, C&C ON makes the game more challenging when played as single-player vs. the computer. As for whether C&C ON is more 'historical' or not is debatable since the word 'historical' seems to have a different definition for every player.
Speaking strictly as a power gamer, C&C ON makes the game more challenging when played as single-player vs. the computer. As for whether C&C ON is more 'historical' or not is debatable since the word 'historical' seems to have a different definition for every player.
-
h_h_lightcap
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:37 pm
- Location: Eureka, CA
RE: C&C
Ban Me NOw GObby---
HH--holding his tongue
HH--holding his tongue
"My soul knows my meat is doing bad things, and is embarrassed. But my meat just keeps right on doing bad, dumb things." ----Kurt Vonnegut
RE: C&C
h_h_lightcap,
I am curious as to why you think you should hold back.
Do you think that C&C ON is not as challenging as C&C OFF in single-player games against the computer?
Do you think that you have a definition of the word 'historical' that represents the consensus view?
In either or both of the cases I just asked about, I would very much like to see the answer(s). Please.
I am curious as to why you think you should hold back.
Do you think that C&C ON is not as challenging as C&C OFF in single-player games against the computer?
Do you think that you have a definition of the word 'historical' that represents the consensus view?
In either or both of the cases I just asked about, I would very much like to see the answer(s). Please.
-
h_h_lightcap
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:37 pm
- Location: Eureka, CA
RE: C&C
vah---
1. first please address my main point about flexibilty of units to retreat or do anything after orders are used in C and C.
2. PLEASE FOR GODS SAKE DONT LECTURE or INSTRUCT ME AGAIN ON HOW C AND C IS HARDER OR MORE CHALLEGING!!!! DUH!!!! that is like saying a tiger is tougher than a sherman---sorry Jess.
3. My point about C and C is not about the challenge but about the goofy way it makes play----I agree that no c and c is too powerfull but the current way c and c works isnt better IT IS WORSE>>>>>>>>>>>>
4. If you want some way to challenge a player then i like your other ideas---AI hard AI advantage---Giving the AI lots of points---Less build pts etc.......
HH
1. first please address my main point about flexibilty of units to retreat or do anything after orders are used in C and C.
2. PLEASE FOR GODS SAKE DONT LECTURE or INSTRUCT ME AGAIN ON HOW C AND C IS HARDER OR MORE CHALLEGING!!!! DUH!!!! that is like saying a tiger is tougher than a sherman---sorry Jess.
3. My point about C and C is not about the challenge but about the goofy way it makes play----I agree that no c and c is too powerfull but the current way c and c works isnt better IT IS WORSE>>>>>>>>>>>>
4. If you want some way to challenge a player then i like your other ideas---AI hard AI advantage---Giving the AI lots of points---Less build pts etc.......
HH
"My soul knows my meat is doing bad things, and is embarrassed. But my meat just keeps right on doing bad, dumb things." ----Kurt Vonnegut
RE: C&C
ORIGINAL: h_h_lightcap
C and C seems like a good idea but it plays goofy---units that are being fired on cant make common sense retreats and it really hurts countries like Germany and Finland that let their Sarg's show initiative and make battlefield deciscions.
HH
Thats probably my main problem with it too. I like the idea of limitations via "orders spent" in order to shift one's axis of advance/attack etc, but to not be able to retreat out of a suddenly hot situation, esp if playing one of the nations that have less "orders" per turn....it quickly snowballs into a mess.
RE: C&C
h_h_lightcap and Nikademus,
C&C ON is currently the setting used by the FlashFyre campaign template. FlashFyre recommended this setting.
Since I am comfortable playing with either C&C ON or OFF (really doesn't matter to me because I have played for years both ways), then when FlashFyre recommended C&C ON I did not have a problem with it. Still don't.
Even today I play about 50% of my SPWAW games with C&C ON and 50% with C&C OFF.
C&C ON is currently the setting used by the FlashFyre campaign template. FlashFyre recommended this setting.
Since I am comfortable playing with either C&C ON or OFF (really doesn't matter to me because I have played for years both ways), then when FlashFyre recommended C&C ON I did not have a problem with it. Still don't.
Even today I play about 50% of my SPWAW games with C&C ON and 50% with C&C OFF.