C&C

[Nikademus]

Thats fine......myself, I play em all 100% CC off. [:)]

Never had a scenario/campaign suffer yet for having it as such.

[vahauser]

Nikademus,
 
Yes, but this thread was originally posted by junk2drive who wanted advice regarding how to play with C&C ON.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Nikademus,

Yes, but this thread was originally posted by junk2drive who wanted advice regarding how to play with C&C ON.

Yes, I saw that, however you then made the statement But C&C ON is a superior way to play. I then saw that h_h_lightcap offered a counter opinion...one which i happen to agree with, and said so.

If Junk want's to play with CC on, by all means....it's a free game of course. [Personally I don't find it "superior" in any way. Maybe redone....but not in it's current incarnation. It hasn't diminshed my SP experience. ]

[vahauser]

Nikademus,
 
Fair enough.  There could be endless debate regarding which is the superior way.  I play both equally. 
 
In my opinion, C&C ON is more challenging.  I think that is why FlashFyre recommended it for the FlashFyre campaign template. 
 
Does more challenging = superior?  Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  But it doesn't matter because everybody has both options to play either as they prefer.
 
In my case, if somebody says, "Victor, let's play with C&C ON."  I say fine with me.  If somebody says, "Victor, let's play with C&C OFF."  I say fine with me.
 
If somebody put a gun to my head and forced me to choose between the two, I would choose C&C ON.  I would choose C&C ON because it magnifies skill differences between players.  By this I mean that if two players of unequal ability are playing, C&C OFF gives the weaker player a better chance to win.  But if those same two players are playing with C&C ON, then the weaker player has less chance to win.  I see this as important for things like tournaments where the goal is that ability should prevail instead of luck.  But how often do we play in tournaments?  Not very often, so this is not very relevant and not a very important distinction.  Which means that it just doesn't matter very much.
 
As an aside, the reason that C&C ON magnifies skill differences between players is because it adds another layer of complexity to an already complex game.  More skilled players can handle that additional layer of complexity more readily, thereby giving them a greater advantage.  Don't misunderstand me.  This does not imply that C&C ON is superior to C&C OFF.  I'm not saying that.  I'm merely saying that it is more complicated.  More complicated does not mean superior.  Just means more complicated.

[Nikademus]

If somebody put a gun to my head and forced me to choose between the two, I would choose C&C ON. I would choose C&C ON because it magnifies skill differences between players

I thought you said the point of this thread was to gather advice regarding the use of CC? [:)]

[vahauser]

Nikademus,
 
Well said. 
 
 
junk2drive,
 
If you (or anyone else) have come up with any questions regarding C&C ON, I'll do my best to answer them.

[vahauser]

junk2drive,

Here are a couple of tips when using C&C ON:

1) Be very careful with your initial deployment. I typically take a day or even two days to do my initial deployment. To me, playing with C&C ON is somewhat like chess. The challenge is to be able to look several turns into the future. Everything during deployment should be choreographed as much as possible. Units and formations all need objectives assigned that allow them to operate most effectively as a team. Deployment is the only time this can be done without interference from the enemy. I try to foresee routes of advance, lanes of fire, secondary and tertiary firing positions, etc.
2) Transport units that shuttle back and forth (e.g., river barges) can be assigned a ‘mid-point’ objective that is midway between the ‘pickup’ location and the ‘dropoff’ location. This allows the transport unit to move back and forth without having to expend orders all the time.
3) I find it best to assign ‘far-away’ objectives to formations that I cannot foresee a better ‘close-range’ objective. Often, the very first thing I’ll do during deployment is assign a ‘far-away’ objective (usually somewhere along the enemy board edge) using the “all formation” objective command. Then I go through all my formations one by one and modify their objectives if necessary.
4) I define a ‘close-range’ objective as one that the formation can reach in three turns. I use three turns because typically that is how long it will take for the formation commander to regenerate enough orders to issue a new objective. It is also about the maximum number of turns that I can foresee into the future with any degree of reliability. In general, I prefer ‘close-range’ objectives over ‘far-away’ objectives because I can frequently get more precise coordination between formations. But there is always the danger that if something happens to the formation commander, then a ‘close-range’ objective can backfire, leaving the damaged formation without orders and in trouble. There is a definite risk and reward here. I’ve played with C&C ON for so many years that it is second nature to me. Just be advised that ‘close-range’ objectives can be risky business. But the rewards of better tactical flexibility can be worth the risk if you know what you are doing.

Hope these tips might come in handy for you.

--V