Who plays C&C

[M4Jess]

who?

[slehtine]

C&C makes game play too rigid. And to me this is just a game.

-Sasa

[Svennemir]

When I'm lazy I play without. When I'm up for a real battle I prefer C&C on. When PBEM'ing, opponent usually decides.

Voted "sometimes"

[Jim1954]

I get my *ss handed to me far too often as it is, w/o order constrictions/limitations. So..... NO.

[Orzel Bialy]

it was only against the AI...but with H2H, it will probably become a bit more frequent.

[Irinami]

I almost never play with C&C. I tried it, but didn't really like it. Didn't go well with my paradigm of command.

[Capt. Pixel]

I tried C&C on again with H2H. My first battle set up with half my force moving east through Moscow (Jess's map) and the other half moving Northwest ACROSS A RIVER.

Those who play C&C know you can get your barges to go ONE WAY across the river, but getting them to turn around and come back is a whole different matter. Especially since their commands come from the truck on the far side

For me... C&C Off.

[vahauser]

Even though I realize that SPWAW is only a game and that C&C ON is only a "model" of command control, I believe that it is a better model of the command experience than playing with C&C OFF.

Order Points
These represent the limited amount of available decisions that a formation commander can communicate/coordinate within the short time span of an SPWAW turn. This is a fundamental feature of C&C ON and is very "realistic" in a historical context. I believe that players should not have infinite flexibility within a very short turn.

Objectives
These are another crucial aspect of C&C ON that represent the historical reality that the WWII battlefield was a very dangerous environment. In such an environment, units could not go dashing off willy nilly all over the place at a moment's notice. They had to move in strictly controlled avenues to maintain not only formation integrity but also to avoid being fired upon by their own friendly units. Further, units almost NEVER moved historically unless they had orders (objectives). Here again I believe that players should not have infinite flexibility within a very short turn.

All in all, I believe that C&C ON is a very good "model" representing the real-life challenges that faced historical commanders. To me, playing without C&C ON is to miss out on the total SPWAW gaming/command experience.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

I voted sometimes, but it should be assumed that it is a dim sometimes for me.

As slehtine commented, its just a game. I usually prefer to just have fun driving tanks around and listening to the kabooms and the ratatatata sounds hehe.

But the AI just doesn't do it for making the game hard enough. And when playing a person, I guess I like all the bells and whistles to be added in (must be my ASL nature there).

Still I won't say C&C is perfection (Capt Pixel illustrates this in his comment). But it does make the game more intense if used. And as my play style is like normally play a turn then get back to doing something else, the complexity doesn't intrude on me to much.

[Panzer Leo]

I would like to add the whole arty dimension C&C is adding...to have to use orders to call or to change arty fire makes your FOs very valuable...did you buy enough of them ? What if one gets killed by an enemy arty bombardment or airstrike...shall you sacrifice some orders from the Colonel to get in the arty support faster or is it enough if the green Lt calls it in, because the Colonel is needed to redirect the tank company running amok into the wrong direction ?

It makes the whole arty thing more expensive (what is a good thing in my eyes in itself) and forces you to make decisions that are pretty tough and can influence the outcome of a battle if wrong...cool

[vahauser]

What Leo said. C&C ON makes the whole artillery situation more realistic and challenging. I suspect that one of the reasons that many people who play C&C OFF are so interested in establishing artillery limits is because it is so easy to use. However, with C&C ON, artillery assets are much more challenging to coordinate and control.

[wulfir]

I'm too lazy.

I don't usually bother with setting the 'arty pre-register hexes' either...

[Capt. Pixel]

Originally posted by vahauser
What Leo said. C&C ON makes the whole artillery situation more realistic and challenging. I suspect that one of the reasons that many people who play C&C OFF are so interested in establishing artillery limits is because it is so easy to use. However, with C&C ON, artillery assets are much more challenging to coordinate and control.

I Do agree with this. Artillery really should have to be concerned with available orders for plots, etc. A Player really should have a bunch of FOs if they've got a bunch of artillery. H2H seems to have addressed this somewhat in the modfied Oobs. But the other shortcomings of C&C can really tend to intrude on some of the unit operations.

If only there were a way to impart C&C on arty ops and not on other units on the map (kind of a 'Partial C&C')

Dream On - I know.

[Irinami]

Another pipe dream for an alternate C&C would be that units not in contact this turn would be eligible for opfire from friendly units (if the friendlies failed an experience check). Just a pipe dream, though.

[Orzel Bialy]

C&C "on" seems to be taking a sound whippin' in the polls.

While I use it against the AI...I'd still have to take it for a spin in a human vs. human Pbem before I cast my final judgement.

[vahauser]

Orzel,

I'd be happy to play a PBEM battle with C&C ON. Let me know what kind of battle you want and I can set it up Friday.

[Orzel Bialy]

let's keep it small (map and purchase points)...so it's fairly quick, fast and furious.

I'd like to try the French in 1940 once more (I did before and was thrashed badly...and that was without C&C!!!) to see C&C in action on units that were not as technologically or tactically advanced as the Germans...while playing a human adversary.

[M4Jess]

the gap closes....hmmm..

[vahauser]

Hi Orzel,

How about a German Advance 3000 pts versus a French Delay 2000 pts at Dawn in May 1940; Clear Weather; Visibility 18; 18 Turns; Medium Map

I won't use any special ops or airdrops or airstrikes.

True Troop Cost ON
Rarity Off
Historical Characteristics OFF
National Characteristics ON
German Troop Quality 91
French Troop Quality 79 (this is a suggestion, you may choose any Troop Quality you want)
German artillery limited to 300 pts
French artillery limited to 200 pts
Mines ON (French may purchase up to 50 pts of mines pregame)
Limited Intel ON
Unit Comm ON
Command Control ON
Weapon Reliability ON
Vehicle Reliability ON
Limited Ammo ON
Reduced Squads OFF
All Player Preferences 100%

I can set this up by the time you get home from work Friday.

How does this sound?

--Victor

[TheOverlord]

I have played with it on vs AI but not agianst a person, so I voted sometimes. I am up for giving it awhirl though.

I think it adds value to the game in some situations, but not all. Capt Pixels post is a perfect example of where it is not accurate and actually ruins things - barges are used as ferries that need to go back and forth, and to have to expend orders to get them to do what they should do natrually is not accurate.

In other respects it forces a player to plan better. Cant suddenly send that plattoon of armor racing from the north to the south to block an opponents advance.....

The key to it is having a plan in the begining before you even purchase a single unit, and set up objectives that are far enough back that will offer you a wide 'cone' of movement.

And have enough forces set aside and positioned / objectives set to act as a contingency in the event your opponent blows your plan appart.

One thing I dont like about it is that it takes away some of the flexibility of the unit movement when it seems logical to be able to do so. To be charged points to maybe back a tank up a hex or two away from the objective into better cover, or to the side a hex or two to duck behind a hill annoys me.

It should allow for a small amount of movement away from the objective before hitting you for order points.

In short, I am willing to give it a try against a person and give it a fair try.