First Impressions

[kvob]

I've just played through a small desert scenario (Djebbe el Guessa) and here are my thoughts.

First - I really like the look of this game. Yes it's probably too much for those of us used to bilinear (trilinear...umpeenlinear!) shadings and calculations but, for me, it harks back to a time when I'd ponder over the latest publication from SPI or Avalon or any of the other board game makers. The whole point of a computer for me is to recreate those board games that I just don't have the space to set up.

Djebbe el Guessa (or however it's spelled) is a nice little scenario to start learning the ropes with (after a quick flick through the manual).

The game has quite a few scenarios to help it keep that fresh and interesting aspect to it. I can imagine me coming back to this one of and on for quite a while. The available scernarios range from the desert to Stalingrad to Guadalcanal so there seems to be plenty of variety.

One thing that worries me: I won a decisive Axis victory against the AI. I know that I enjoy these games but am also aware that my skill level hovers just above utterly useless so the fact that I beat the AI on my first scenario is a source of concern.

Hopefully, my victory was merely a fluke and my worries are unfounded.

All in all, a nice little game [:)]

[Obsolete]

I did read in the scenario briefing, that map was for beginners so perhaps it was supposed to be easy, not 100% sure. Though it is my understanding that these scenarios are more based on accuracy than balancing, which should be kept in mind when trying to select one later on vs a human opponent.

Interestingly, IIRC when I ran through the Stalingrad scenario as the Russians, I got my ass handed to me, though perhaps that's due to me and my inexperience with very crowded maps. If you can pull that one off, I'd like to ask you a few things on how you managed that. Ironically, I manged (I thought quite well) to run over that map as the Axis.

[kvob]

For beginners makes sense. That's about my skill level.

I should have added in my first post how much I like the scale of the game. It seems to offer a good range of scenarios without looking to be unmanageable.

The Stalingrad scenario in particular looks quite daunting (but tempting) to play. I think it will be quite a while before I'm ready for that one.

Frankly, I expect to get my rear end handed to me on a plate in Stalingrad. [:D]

[Fred98]

It would be handy if there were a list of scenarios sorted according to how many units are in the scenario.
 
Smallest to largest.
-
 

[Lützow]

Is there something special about Combat Command which sets this game apart? Regarding the screens I don't see a reason to buy it, if one owns TOAW III already.

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: Lützow

Is there something special about Combat Command which sets this game apart? Regarding the screens I don't see a reason to buy it, if one owns TOAW III already.

Distinct phases within a turn that makes it feel like you're playing a classic boardgame and not a computer game that does everything for you.

TOAW is more flexible and comprehensive but the turn resolution of TOAW still baffles me.

[Hertston]

Still mulling over this one. Reviews of the original games suggest the AI was less than briliant, to say the least, and I don't as yet see anything to suggest that's changed much. CC would be a netbook hence mainly single-player purchase for me.

And with both ATG and Time of Fury coming up... does anyone have a convincing reason why I need this game?

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: Hertston
....... does anyone have a convincing reason why I need this game?

Travelling these days a wargamer takes a netbook because there are no wargames for the iPad.

If the game runs OK on a netbook then thats a good thing.
-

[kvob]

I'm currently trying out the Carentan scenario (as Americans) and finding this one much harder. I feel like I'm fighting the terrain as much as the Axis. Swamp and forest are playing havoc with my command. Despite the HQ being in an adjacent hex, my glider troops in woods are out of command. I had to check the manual but...sure enough woods causes a large modifier against the chances of being in command.

Axis forces are defending fiercly and I'm struggling to over come them.

Bottom line is...I'm getting a kicking (but thoroughly enjoying it)[:D]

[hank]

I know nothing of the Combat Command series but it sounds interesting so I have a few questions.
I can't find enough description to answer some of my question so those links to the old reviews are great. I was building a list of questions but The CombatSim review really filled in several answers.

For ranged direct fire are the hex ranges fairly accurate to the caliber of weapon used? For instance an 88mm can reach out to 2000m +, so it would have a 3 to 4 hex range but a 75mm Sherman may only have a two hex range.

Doe the probabililty of a direct fire kill degrade as the distance increases? (i.e., a one hex range to target should have a higher chance of success than a 3 hex distance)

Are stacking limits based on a set number of unit counters or on population in a hex? (some games use a max number of units per hexes regardless of how many men or piece of equipment the accumulated units total up to; whereas some games take into account how much space that a hex can realistically accommodate)

Has a fatigue factor been added to the game?

Is line of sight a factor? And elevation changes?

What method is used to generate random numbers for the die roll? (more accurately described as pseudo random numbers)

Are the OOB's fairly accurate? (I don't expect perfection but very close to it would be nice)

Is facing an issue?

I've been looking for a good tactical (company) level hex based game. I have many WWII hex based games but none at this scale. I have several HPS Pz Campaigns, SSG's KP/BiN/AtD/Kharkhov, TOAW II, and Decisive Campaigns

[Obsolete]

Yes, it is harder to score hits, or even inflict QCs at a further away distance.  

Stacking limits are NOT based on counters. Games like that give the ridiculous scenario where three companies down to 10% size can not stack on a hex (one has to stay out), yet two companies at 100% size are able to sneak into the limit.  

Combat Command works by what the manual refers to as HITS. Though I prefer to call them Platoons, since the scale is pretty much the same there. Basically, there is a max of 9 platoons (hits) per hex. You can see these values (1-3) on the counters themselves at all times. From this, we can conclude the minimum counters you’ll be able to stack will be 3, with a maximum being 9.    

Fatigue isn’t part of the mechanics, though technically there are soft-ground issues and night-time elements where pushing too much in these aspects will punish you severely with QCs.  

To be honest, I have no clue which algorithm is used for the RNG! But there is an option that allows you to observe the rolls, just to make sure nothing fancy is going on.  

I would hope the OOBs were fairly accurate, though that will probably always be open to debate, since people can’t even agree today on official facts & records for past battle events.  

Facing is not an issue. The scale is too big here, which would cause that element to break down. HOWEVER, there still are flank bonuses. For each ADJACANT hex in which a defender is being assaulted against, the attacker gains an additional 10% boost to his strength. This is cumulative.  

[hank]

Thanks much for the answers. I try to find the answers first in other posts but I may have not been very thorough in my search.

I'm not too concerned about the PRNG calcs. I did quite a bit of research on the subject a couple of years ago. Not knowing what language CC is programmed in, I would guess its some flavor of the standard PRNG functions provided, such as srand() and rand() in C++ or whatever random function and seeding method typical for the language used.

Two questions left for me.

Does elevation affect combat results? and line of sight?

Are unit strengths and losses based on actually numbers of personnel and equipment or "steps" as some games use?

I like your answers. You're really tweeking my interest now. I really like the answer about stacking limits and ranged direct fire. I have a couple of very popular games that impose an arbitrary stacking limit with no consideration of population density within the hex.

I'm not sure what a "QC" is exactly yet. Is that strength rating of some type?

Thanks again

[mgarnett]

Hi hank,

Unit strength is based on steps, more like the SSG games.  Elevation certainly does affect line of sight with units losing contact as they move behind high ground.  Having a unit on high ground helps to give you a much more detailed (although far from perfect) picture of the battleground.

There is also a fog of war element (which is selectable) which means you might see either just a unit's nationality, or you might see the unit type (i.e. armour, infantry) but not it's combat strength or any other details or you may see full unit details depending on your intel.  This intel does seem to be based on distance from he unit and the interveneing terrain.

The AI seems find to me (as far as computer AI's go).  I just played the Djebel El Guessa scenario as the Axis against the Allied AI.  I managed to take the high ground objectives early but the AI counterattacked on both my flanks and prevented me from getting the final objective.  As a result, the scenario finished with an Allied Pyrrhic victory.

A nice feature is that the game keeps a record of all your games, which scenarios you have played, the date you played it and the victory result.  It's a simple feature which I wished more wargames had.

Cheers

Mark

[Obsolete]

QC = Quality Check

It has been a while since I remember discussing with Mike what compiler he was using, so I can't just remember right now. I'll check into it though.

[sullafelix]

To me it's a solid very small foot print game that plays well against the AI.

[sabre1]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

It would be handy if there were a list of scenarios sorted according to how many units are in the scenario.

Smallest to largest.
-

+1

[sabre1]

Well this game rocks for me. Simple, elegant, UI is a little clunky, but not hard to figure out. I love the scale. You would have to be a real graphics whore, or hate phased movement, not to like this game. I kept debating back in the day when this game came out if I should get it. I should have. Thanks Matrix.

[sabre1]

If I can figure it out, anyone can.

[Rosseau]

You can congratulate yourself on waiting, Sabre. What a great way to experience the game with an updated edition like this. If you play one of the larger scenarios down the road, let us know about the micro-management. I seem to remember them being cumbersome, but can't be sure. Thanks.

[Magpius]

Just got it....hmmm
Feature request for updates.

• wheel mouse zoom +-
• hold right mouse button panning

otherwise 1st impressions [8D]